library(knitr)
library(pander)
library(compute.es)
library(metafor)
library(dplyr)
library(lme4)
library(forestplot)
library(ggplot2)
library(MuMIn)
library(glmulti)
library(cowplot)
library(ggrepel)
library(reshape2)

Methods

Our aim was to investigate the effects of sexual selection on population fitness by conducting a meta-analysis on studies that measured fitness related outcomes after experimentally evolving a population under varying levels of opportunity for sexual selection. Here we describe the process of the literature search, data extraction, effect size calculation, formulation of multilevel models and assessing publication bias.

Literature Search (Extended methods from paper)

The literature search was conducted under the following conditions:

  1. We searched ISI Web of Science and Scopus on 9th June 2017. Notably, these resulted in a different set of returns (PRISMA Figure).

  2. Studies were restricted to those from peer-reviewed and in the English language.

  3. We devised a search strategy that sought to find studies which manipulated the presence or strength of sexual selection using experimental evolution, and then measured some proxy of population fitness. As such the search terms were as follows:

ISI Web of Science

Topic (TS) = “Sexual Selection” OR Promisc* OR Monogam* OR Polygam* OR Polyandr* OR Polygyn* OR “Mate choice”

AND

Topic (TS) = Fitness OR “Population Fitness” OR Deleterious OR “Male Strength” OR Fecund* OR Viability OR Productiv* OR “Reproductive Success” OR “Reproductive Rate” OR Surviv* OR | “Development Rate” OR Extinct* OR “Competitive Success” OR Mortality OR Mass OR “Body Size” OR “Wing Size” OR Emergence OR Mating Rate OR “Mating Propensity” OR Adapt* OR “Novel | Environment” OR “Sexual Conflict” OR “Sexual Antagonis*”

AND

Topic (TS) = Generations OR “Experimental evolution” OR “mutation load”

AND

Research Area (SU) = “Evolutionary Biology”

Scopus

TITLE-ABS-KEY = “Sexual Selection” OR Promisc* OR Monogam* OR Polygam* OR Polyandr* OR Polygyn* OR “Mate choice”

AND

TITLE-ABS-KEY = Fitness OR “Population Fitness” OR Deleterious OR “Male Strength” OR Fecund* OR Viability OR Productiv* OR “Reproductive Success” OR “Reproductive Rate” OR Surviv* | OR “Development Rate” OR Extinct* OR “Competitive Success” OR Mortality OR Mass OR “Body Size” OR “Wing Size” OR Emergence OR Mating Rate OR “Mating Propensity” OR Adapt* OR | “Novel Environment” OR “Sexual Conflict” OR “Sexual Antagonis*”

AND

TITLE-ABS-KEY = Generations OR “Experimental evolution” OR “mutation load”

In addition to studies found from the literature search we also included three relevant studies that were identified during scoping but not picked up in the subsequent formal searches (Partridge 1980; Price et al. 2010; Savic Veselinovic et al. 2013) that were missed by the database searches (PRISMA Figure).

  1. After removing duplicates, we read the titles and abstracts of the remaining 1015 papers, and removed papers that were not relevant (typically because they were not an empirical study using experimental evolution). This left 130 papers, for which we read the full text and applied the following selection criteria:
  • (1: Study Design) The study was an experimental evolution study lasting >1 generation
  • (1: Population) a) The study was conducted using an animal species that was b) diecious
  • (1: Intervention and Control) The study experimentally manipulated the strength of sexual selection (e.g. via enforced monogamy or an altered sex ratio)
  • (1: Outcomes) The study measured a trait that we judged to be a potential correlate of population fitness.

This latter criterion is likely to be contentious, because there is rarely enough data justify the assumption that a particular trait is (or is not) correlated with population fitness. We therefore relied on our best judgement when deciding which studies to exclude (see Table XXX). The inclusion/exlusion critera as applied to each study are detailed in an accompaning spreadsheet.

Eligibility.criteria <- read.csv('Eligibility Workbook(22.02).csv', fileEncoding="UTF-8")
Eligibility.criteria %>% pander(split.cell = 20, split.table = 250, style = "grid")


+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|       Authors        | Year |         Title         | Study.Design | Population | Intervention.and.Control | Outcomes | Included | Exclusion.Reason |        Notes         |
+======================+======+=======================+==============+============+==========================+==========+==========+==================+======================+
|  Aguirre, J. D. and  | 2012 |     Does Genetic      |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |                      |
|    D. J. Marshall    |      |   Diversity Reduce    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | Sibling Competition?  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Ahuja, A. and R. S.  | 2008 |     Variation and     |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |                      |
|        Singh         |      |   evolution of male   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     sex combs in      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  Drosophila: Nature   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     of selection      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     response and      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  theories of genetic  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | variation for sexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        traits         |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Almbro, M. and L. W. | 2014 | Sexual Selection Can  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |   Male strength is   |
|       Simmons        |      |       Remove an       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     important in     |
|                      |      |    Experimentally     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     competition      |
|                      |      |   Induced Mutation    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |         Load          |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Amitin, E. G. and S. | 2007 |     Influence of      |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |                      |
|       Pitnick        |      |     developmental     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | environment on male-  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  and female-mediated  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  sperm precedence in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Antolin, M. F., P.  | 2003 |      Population       |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |                      |
|    J. Ode, G. E.     |      |   structure, mating   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|    Heimpel, R. B.    |      |      system, and      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   O'Hara and M. R.   |      |    sex-determining    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Strand        |      |  allele diversity of  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  the parasitoid wasp  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  Habrobracon hebetor  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Arbuthnott, D., E.  | 2014 |    The ecology of     |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |                      |
|   M. Dutton, A. F.   |      |   sexual conflict:    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|  Agrawal and H. D.   |      |     ecologically      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Rundle        |      |  dependent parallel   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   evolution of male   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    harm and female    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     resistance in     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Arbuthnott, D. and  | 2012 |  Sexual Selection Is  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Natural selection   |
|     H. D. Rundle     |      |    Ineffectual or     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | acted against tested |
|                      |      | Inhibits the Purging  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    alleles, thus     |
|                      |      |    of Deleterious     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   indicate fitness   |
|                      |      |     Mutations in      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |        aspect        |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     Melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Arbuthnott, D. and  | 2014 |    Misalignment of    |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |                      |
|     H. D. Rundle     |      |  natural and sexual   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    selection among    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  divergently adapted  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      populations      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Archer, C. R., E.   | 2015 | Sex-specific effects  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Natural selection   |
| Duffy, D. J. Hosken, |      |    of natural and     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     was measured     |
|   M. Mokkonen, K.    |      |  sexual selection on  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | simultanous and thus |
| Okada, K. Oku, M. D. |      |   the evolution of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | provides measurement |
|  Sharma and J. Hunt  |      | life span and ageing  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      of fitness      |
|                      |      |     in Drosophila     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       simulans        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Artieri, C. G., W.  | 2008 | Sexual selection and  |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |                      |
| Haerty, B. P. Gupta  |      |  maintenance of sex:  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   and R. S. Singh    |      |     Evidence from     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | comparisons of rates  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      of genomic       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    accumulation of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     mutations and     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     divergence of     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | sex-related genes in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      sexual and       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    hermaphroditic     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      species of       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    Caenorhabditis     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Bacigalupe, L. D.,  | 2007 | Sexual conflict does  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |    Viability and     |
|  H. S. Crudgington,  |      |       not drive       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    sterility were    |
|   F. Hunter, A. J.   |      |     reproductive      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  measured + Mating   |
|   Moore and R. R.    |      |     isolation in      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | Speed, However these |
|        Snook         |      |     experimental      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   were in crosses,   |
|                      |      |    populations of     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | refer to 2008 study  |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | for beater outcomes  |
|                      |      |     pseudoobscura     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Bacigalupe, L. D.,  | 2008 | Sexual selection and  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |    No    |   Not Suitable   |  Mating speed cited  |
|  H. S. Crudgington,  |      |      interacting      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   as a measure of    |
|   J. Slate, A. J.    |      |     phenotypes in     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  fitness. Uses both  |
|   Moore and R. R.    |      |     experimental      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   male and female.   |
|        Snook         |      |  evolution: A study   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | Doesn't really work. |
|                      |      |     of Drosophila     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | pseudoobscura mating  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       behavior        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Barbosa, M., S. R.  | 2012 | Fitness consequences  |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |  Measures multiple   |
| Connolly, M. Hisano, |      |  of female multiple   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  mating not choice   |
|  M. Dornelas and A.  |      |   mating: A direct    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|     E. Magurran      |      |   test of indirect    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       benefits        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Bernasconi, G. and  | 2001 |   Female polyandry    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |  Unsure  |   Yes    |                  |  Polyandry was done  |
|      L. Keller       |      |  affects their sons'  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  sequentially with   |
|                      |      | reproductive success  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | postcop mate choice, |
|                      |      |   in the red flour    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     however the      |
|                      |      |   beetle Tribolium    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     experimental     |
|                      |      |       castaneum       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     approach and     |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    measurement of    |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | outcomes meant that  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  extracting SS+ vs   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | SS- was not possible |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Bielak, A. P., A. M. | 2014 |     Selection for     |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         | Artificial selection |
| Skrzynecka, K. Miler |      |   alternative male    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    was conducted     |
|    and J. Radwan     |      | reproductive tactics  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   alters intralocus   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    sexual conflict    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|     Blows, M. W.     | 2002 |  Interaction between  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |  Hybrid Drosophilia  |
|                      |      |  natural and sexual   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    used, indirect    |
|                      |      | selection during the  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | fitness was measured |
|                      |      |   evolution of mate   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  (mate recognition   |
|                      |      |      recognition      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       system)        |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Brommer, J. E., C.  | 2012 | Interactions between  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Multiple males but  |
| Fricke, D. A. Edward |      |  Genotype and Sexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | only one at a time ( |
|    and T. Chapman    |      | Conflict Environment  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    could be post     |
|                      |      |       Influence       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    copulatory SS)    |
|                      |      |   Transgenerational   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Fitness in       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     Melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Castillo, D. M., M.  | 2015 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |     No SS lines      |
|   K. Burger, C. M.   |      |      evolution:       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   Lively and L. F.   |      |  Assortative mating   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Delph         |      |      and sexual       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      selection,       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | independent of local  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  adaptation, lead to  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     reproductive      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   isolation in the    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       nematode        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    Caenorhabditis     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        remanei        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Cayetano, L., A. A.  | 2011 |   Evolution of Male   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |      Conflict I      |
|   Maklakov, R. C.    |      | and Female Genitalia  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    burdensome and    |
|    Brooks and R.     |      |   Following Release   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     defensive /      |
|     Bonduriansky     |      |      from Sexual      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   offensive traits   |
|                      |      |       Selection       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  have fitness costs  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    and benefits:     |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   Removing as too    |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   difficult to see   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   clear fitness of   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     measurements     |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Chandler, C. H., C.  | 2013 |    Runaway Sexual     |     Yes      |     No     |                          |          |    No    |        2a        |  Digital organisms   |
| Ofria and I. Dworkin |      |  Selection Leads to   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |         used         |
|                      |      |      Good Genes       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Chenoweth, S. F., N. | 2015 |   Genomic Evidence    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |   Alongside direct   |
|  C. Appleton, S. L.  |      |      that Sexual      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  fitness, SNPs also  |
|   Allen and H. D.    |      |   Selection Impedes   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   used. This paper   |
|        Rundle        |      |    Adaptation to a    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  reports SNPs while  |
|                      |      |   Novel Environment   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    Rundle (2006)     |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   reports fitness    |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | measures. Thus data  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  is extracted from   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | that paper, not this |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |         one          |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Chenoweth, S. F., D. | 2007 |      Male choice      |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |   Behavioural mate   |
| Petfield, P. Doughty |      |       generates       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  choice experiment   |
|   and M. W. Blows    |      |  stabilizing sexual   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    selection on a     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   female fecundity    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       correlate       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Chenoweth, S. F., H. | 2008 |  Genetic constraints  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |  Natural selection   |
| D. Rundle and M. W.  |      | and the evolution of  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  was also measured   |
|        Blows         |      | display trait sexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | and CHCs provide an  |
|                      |      |     dimorphism by     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   indirect fitness   |
|                      |      |  natural and sexual   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |        aspect        |
|                      |      |       selection       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Chenoweth, S. F., H. | 2010 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |   CHCs may provide   |
| D. Rundle and M. W.  |      |   evidence for the    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   indirect fitness   |
|        Blows         |      |     evolution of      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |        aspect        |
|                      |      |   indirect genetic    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  effects: changes in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    the interaction    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  effect coefficient,  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    psi (_), due to    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   sexual selection    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Crudgington, H. S.,  | 2005 | Experimental removal  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
| A. P. Beckerman, L.  |      |   and elevation of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|  Brustle, K. Green   |      |   sexual selection:   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   and R. R. Snook    |      |      Does sexual      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  selection generate   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  manipulative males   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     and resistant     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       females?        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Crudgington, H. S.,  | 2009 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Direct and indirect  |
|  S. Fellows, N. S.   |      |    Manipulation of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       outcomes       |
|  Badcock and R. R.   |      |   Sexual Selection    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Snook         |      |   Promotes Greater    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | Male Mating Capacity  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  but Does Not Alter   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   Sperm Investment    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Crudgington, H. S.,  | 2010 |       Increased       |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
| S. Fellows and R. R. |      |    opportunity for    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Snook         |      |    sexual conflict    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   promotes harmful    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  males with elevated  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       courtship       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      frequencies      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Debelle, A., M. G.  | 2016 | Sexual selection and  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
|  Ritchie and R. R.   |      |  assortative mating:  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Snook         |      | an experimental test  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Demont, M., V. M.   | 2014 | Experimental Removal  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
|      Grazer, L.      |      |  of Sexual Selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|  Michalczyk, A. L.   |      |  Reveals Adaptations  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|    Millard, S. H.    |      | to Polyandry in Both  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   Sbilordo, B. C.    |      |         Sexes         |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|  Emerson, M. J. G.   |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|    Gage and O. Y.    |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Martin        |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Edward, D. A., C.   | 2010 |    Adaptations to     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
|    Fricke and T.     |      | sexual selection and  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|       Chapman        |      |   sexual conflict:    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     insights from     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     experimental      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     evolution and     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | artificial selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|       Fava, G.       | 1975 |    Studies on the     |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |                      |
|                      |      |   selective agents    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     operating in      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     experimental      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | populations of Tisbe  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      clodiensis       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      (Copepoda,       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    Harpacticoida)     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Firman, R. C.     | 2011 |  Polyandrous females  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  It looks like post  |
|                      |      | benefit by producing  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | copulatory selection |
|                      |      |   sons that achieve   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   was enabled here   |
|                      |      |   high reproductive   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     success in a      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      competitive      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      environment      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Firman, R. C.     | 2014 |     Female social     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | The outcome measured |
|                      |      | preference for males  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      was female      |
|                      |      |   that have evolved   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | preference and male  |
|                      |      |     via monogamy:     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | scent marking rate.  |
|                      |      |     evidence of a     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  May have a role in  |
|                      |      |   trade-off between   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   fitness but not    |
|                      |      |       pre- and        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  explicitly stated   |
|                      |      |    post-copulatory    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   sexually selected   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        traits?        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Firman, R. C., L. Y. | 2011 |   Sperm competition   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Sperm quality was   |
|   Cheam and L. W.    |      |  does not influence   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       measured       |
|       Simmons        |      |      sperm hook       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     morphology in     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  selection lines of   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      house mice       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Firman, R. C., F.   | 2015 |  Evolutionary change  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |   Amount of sperm    |
| Garcia-Gonzalez, E.  |      |   in testes tissue    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | producing tissue was |
|  Thyer, S. Wheeler,  |      |   composition among   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    measured as it    |
|  Z. Yamin, M. Yuan   |      |     experimental      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     provides an      |
|  and L. W. Simmons   |      | populations of house  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  advantage in sperm  |
|                      |      |         mice          |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     competition      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Firman, R. C., M.   | 2014 |  The Coevolution of   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  ova defensivenenss  |
|  Gomendio, E. R. S.  |      |   Ova Defensiveness   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       can bias       |
|   Roldan and L. W.   |      |      with Sperm       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  fertilization to a  |
|       Simmons        |      |  Competitiveness in   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  more specific type  |
|                      |      |      House Mice       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | of sperm and thus be |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | a fitness adavantage |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Firman, R. C. and L. | 2010 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |   Polygamous lines   |
|      W. Simmons      |      |  Evolution of Sperm   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      have only       |
|                      |      |      Quality Via      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   post-copulatory    |
|                      |      |    Postcopulatory     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      selection       |
|                      |      |  Sexual Selection in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      House Mice       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Firman, R. C. and L. | 2011 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Sperm competition is |
|      W. Simmons      |      |  evolution of sperm   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | a fitness advantage  |
|                      |      | competitiveness in a  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        mammal         |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Firman, R. C. and L. | 2012 |    Male house mice    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |     Post cop SS      |
|      W. Simmons      |      |     evolving with     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    post-copulatory    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   sexual selection    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   sire embryos with   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  increased viability  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Fricke, C., C.    | 2010 |   Natural selection   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |  Could not use the   |
|   Andersson and G.   |      |  hampers divergence   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   broad outcome of   |
|       Arnqvist       |      |    of reproductive    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     reproductive     |
|                      |      |   traits in a seed    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  characteristics as  |
|                      |      |        beetle         |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      it is not       |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     directional      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Fricke, C. and G.   | 2007 |  Rapid adaptation to  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |    Also post cop     |
|       Arnqvist       |      |   a novel host in a   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      seed beetle      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    (Callosobruchus    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | maculatus): The role  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  of sexual selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Fritzsche, K., I.   | 2016 | Sex Ratio Bias Leads  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Male bias and female |
|  Booksmythe and G.   |      |  to the Evolution of  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | bias setups without  |
|       Arnqvist       |      | Sex Role Reversal in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | monogamus/lack of SS |
|                      |      | Honey Locust Beetles  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Fritzsche, K., N.   | 2014 |    Female, but not    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Male bias and female |
|   Timmermeyer, M.    |      |    male, nematodes    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | bias setups without  |
|   Wolter and N. K.   |      |     evolve under      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | monogamus/lack of SS |
|       Michiels       |      |  experimental sexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      coevolution      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Garcia-Gonzalez, F., | 2015 |  Mating portfolios:   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |    No    |   Not Suitable   |   Experiments run    |
|  Y. Yasui and J. P.  |      |  bet-hedging, sexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      alongside       |
|        Evans         |      | selection and female  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | bet-hedging, perhaps |
|                      |      |    multiple mating    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | confounding, need to |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     look at data     |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Gay, L., P. E. Eady, | 2009 |   Does reproductive   |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |    Generations of    |
|  R. Vasudev, D. J.   |      |   isolation evolve    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    monoandry were    |
|    Hosken and T.     |      |   faster in larger    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     replaced by      |
|       Tregenza       |      |    populations via    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | polyandry (not done  |
|                      |      |       sexually        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  simultaneously ),   |
|                      |      |     antagonistic      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | Not sure whether the |
|                      |      |     coevolution?      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   monogamous lines   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   were maintained.   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | This experiment was  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     focussed on      |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     reproductive     |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   isolation anyway   |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Gay, L., D. J.    | 2011 |   The Evolution of    |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |    Generations of    |
| Hosken, P. Eady, R.  |      |    Harm-Effect of     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    monoandry were    |
|    Vasudev and T.    |      | Sexual Conflicts and  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     replaced by      |
|       Tregenza       |      |    Population Size    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | polyandry (not done  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  simultaneously ),   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | Not sure whether the |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   monogamous lines   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   were maintained.   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    Also, did not     |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | directly look at SS+ |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |        vs SS-        |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Gay, L., D. J.    | 2009 |   Sperm competition   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Appears to be direct |
| Hosken, R. Vasudev,  |      | and maternal effects  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  comparison bw mono  |
|  T. Tregenza and P.  |      |    differentially     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       and poly       |
|       E. Eady        |      | influence testis and  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     sperm size in     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    Callosobruchus     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       maculatus       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Grazer, V. M., M.   | 2014 |     Environmental     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Direct Measures of  |
|      Demont, L.      |      |    quality alters     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      fitness in      |
| Michalczyk, M. J. G. |      |   female costs and    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  environments that   |
|    Gage and O. Y.    |      | benefits of evolving  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   had standard and   |
|        Martin        |      |    under enforced     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  sub-standard food   |
|                      |      |       monogamy        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       quality        |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   Grieshop, K., J.   | 2016 |     Strong sexual     |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |   Different mating   |
|    Stangberg, I.     |      |  selection in males   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | systems/ opportunity |
| Martinossi-Allibert, |      |  against a mutation   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   for SS were not    |
|  G. Arnqvist and D.  |      |   load that reduces   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       imposed        |
|        Berger        |      | offspring production  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    in seed beetles    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Hall, M. D., L. F.  | 2009 |    Diet-dependent     |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |   Different mating   |
|   Bussiere and R.    |      |   female evolution    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | systems/ opportunity |
|        Brooks        |      |    influences male    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   for SS were not    |
|                      |      |     lifespan in a     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       imposed        |
|                      |      |    nuptial feeding    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        insect         |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Hangartner, S., L.  | 2015 | Experimental removal  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
| Michalczyk, M. J. G. |      |  of sexual selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|    Gage and O. Y.    |      |  leads to decreased   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Martin        |      |   investment in an    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  immune component in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   female Tribolium    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       castaneum       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Hangartner, S., S.  | 2013 |   Are there genetic   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Different levels of  |
|   H. Sbilordo, L.    |      |  trade-offs between   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  SS, but none with   |
| Michalczyk, M. J. G. |      |      immune and       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  enforced monogamy   |
|    Gage and O. Y.    |      |     reproductive      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     (no choice)      |
|        Martin        |      |    investments in     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | Tribolium castaneum?  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Hicks, S. K., K. L.  | 2004 |   Variable costs of   |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |       Study on       |
| Hagenbuch and L. M.  |      |  mating, longevity,   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    environmental     |
|       Meffert        |      |    and starvation     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  conditions not SS   |
|                      |      |  resistance in Musca  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      treatment       |
|                      |      |  domestica (Diptera:  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       Muscidae)       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|     Holland, B.      | 2002 |   Sexual selection    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |    Also looks at     |
|                      |      |   fails to promote    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    thermal stress    |
|                      |      |  adaptation to a new  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      environment      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Holland, B. and W.  | 1999 | Experimental removal  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
|       R. Rice        |      |  of sexual selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | reverses intersexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     antagonistic      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    coevolution and    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       removes a       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   reproductive load   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Hollis, B., J. L.   | 2009 |   Sexual Selection    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |    looked at the     |
| Fierst and D. Houle  |      |    Accelerates the    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     purging of a     |
|                      |      |   Elimination of a    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  deleterious allele  |
|                      |      |  Deleterious Mutant   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     in Drosophila     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     Melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Hollis, B. and D.   | 2011 |   Populations with    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |   Mutagenesis took   |
|        Houle         |      |   elevated mutation   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   place and direct   |
|                      |      |  load do not benefit  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | fitness measurements |
|                      |      |  from the operation   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      were made       |
|                      |      |  of sexual selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Hollis, B., D. Houle | 2016 | Evolution of reduced  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |    Seminal fluid     |
|  and T. J. Kawecki   |      |    post-copulatory    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   proteins have a    |
|                      |      |       molecular       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | fitness advantage in |
|                      |      |    interactions in    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     a polygamous     |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   setting, thus is   |
|                      |      |  populations lacking  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | favoured. Feels like |
|                      |      |   sperm competition   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | a bit of a circular  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       argument       |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Hollis, B., D.    | 2014 |    Evolution under    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |   Sex biased gene    |
| Houle, Z. Yan, T. J. |      |  monogamy feminizes   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    expression was    |
|    Kawecki and L.    |      |  gene expression in   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  measured, showing   |
|        Keller        |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  sexual antagonism   |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Hollis, B. and T. J. | 2014 |    Male cognitive     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Cognitive ability   |
|       Kawecki        |      | performance declines  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   measured in both   |
|                      |      |   in the absence of   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   male and female    |
|                      |      |   sexual selection    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Hollis, B., L.    | 2017 |   Sexual selection    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |   Development and    |
|   Keller and T. J.   |      |  shapes development   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   fitness measured   |
|       Kawecki        |      | and maturation rates  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     in Drosophila     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Hosken, D. J., O. Y. | 2009 |  Sexual conflict and  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |     Reproductive     |
| Martin, S. Wigby, T. |      |     reproductive      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  isolation measured  |
|  Chapman and D. J.   |      |  isolation in flies   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   without fitness    |
|       Hodgson        |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      components      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   House, C. M., Z.   | 2013 |  Sexual and Natural   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |   Indirect fitness   |
|     Lewis, D. J.     |      |    Selection Both     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  component of male   |
| Hodgson, N. Wedell,  |      |    Influence Male     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    genitalia with    |
|   M. D. Sharma, J.   |      |   Genital Evolution   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       citation       |
|    Hunt and D. J.    |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Hosken        |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   Hunt, J., R. R.    | 2012 | Sexual selection and  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |  Body size measured  |
| Snook, C. Mitchell,  |      |     experimental      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | as well as CHC, like |
|  H. S. Crudgington   |      |     evolution of      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  other studies may   |
|   and A. J. Moore    |      |  chemical signals in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    confer fitness    |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      advantage       |
|                      |      |     pseudoobscura     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Immonen, E., R. R.  | 2014 |     Mating system     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | While transcriptome  |
|   Snook and M. G.    |      |   variation drives    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     outcomes not     |
|       Ritchie        |      |  rapid evolution of   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     exclusively      |
|                      |      |      the female       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  measuring fitness   |
|                      |      |   transcriptome in    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  they also measures  |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | aspects of fecundity |
|                      |      |     pseudoobscura     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Innocenti, P., I.   | 2014 |  Female responses to  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  To some extent the  |
|    Flis and E. H.    |      | experimental removal  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     nature of SS     |
|        Morrow        |      |  of sexual selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     treatment is     |
|                      |      |     components in     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    unclear. Gene     |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    expression and    |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    fecundity are     |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       measured       |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Jacomb, F., J. Marsh | 2016 |   Sexual selection    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Pesticide Resistance |
|    and L. Holman     |      |     expedites the     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | as an environmental  |
|                      |      |     evolution of      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | condition that needs |
|                      |      | pesticide resistance  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   to be adapted to   |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   Janicke, T., P.    | 2016 |    Experimentally     |     Yes      |     No     |                          |          |    No    |        2b        |    Hermaphroditic    |
| Sandner, S. A. Ramm, |      |      evolved and      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
| D. B. Vizoso and L.  |      |    phenotypically     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|       Schaerer       |      | plastic responses to  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | enforced monogamy in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   a hermaphroditic    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       flatworm        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Jarzebowska, M. and  | 2010 |   Sexual Selection    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |    Direct fitness    |
|      J. Radwan       |      |      Counteracts      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  measurements over   |
|                      |      |  Extinction of Small  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | several generations  |
|                      |      |  Populations of the   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Bulb Mites       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Klemme, I. and R. C. | 2013 | Male house mice that  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Paternity Success   |
|        Firman        |      |   have evolved with   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       measured       |
|                      |      |   sperm competition   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    have increased     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  mating duration and  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   paternity success   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Long, T. A. F., A.  | 2012 | The Effect of Sexual  |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |    No enforced SS    |
|  F. Agrawal and L.   |      |     Selection on      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       regimes        |
|         Rowe         |      |   Offspring Fitness   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    Depends on the     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   Nature of Genetic   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       Variation       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Lumley, A. J., L.   | 2015 |   Sexual selection    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Reproductive fitness |
| Michalczyk, J. J. N. |      |   protects against    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     and time to      |
|    Kitson, L. G.     |      |      extinction       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | extinction measured  |
|    Spurgin, C. A.    |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   Morrison, J. L.    |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|    Godwin, M. E.     |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   Dickinson, O. Y.   |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|    Martin, B. C.     |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
| Emerson, T. Chapman  |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|  and M. J. G. Gage   |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  MacLellan, K., L.   | 2012 |  Dietary stress does  |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |   Selection based    |
| Kwan, M. C. Whitlock |      |    not strengthen     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  experiment rather   |
|   and H. D. Rundle   |      |   selection against   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       than EE        |
|                      |      |  single deleterious   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     mutations in      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| MacLellan, K., M. C. | 2009 |   Sexual selection    |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |   Selection based    |
|  Whitlock and H. D.  |      |  against deleterious  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  experiment rather   |
|        Rundle        |      |     mutations via     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       than EE        |
|                      |      | variable male search  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        success        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Maklakov, A. A., R.  | 2009 |   Sex Differences,    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Life History traits  |
| Bonduriansky and R.  |      |   Sexual Selection,   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    were measured     |
|      C. Brooks       |      |    and Ageing: An     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     Experimental      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  Evolution Approach   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Maklakov, A. A. and  | 2009 | Sexual selection did  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         | Life History traits  |
|      C. Fricke       |      |   not contribute to   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    were measured     |
|                      |      |   the evolution of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  male lifespan under  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   curtailed age at    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   reproduction in a   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      seed beetle      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Maklakov, A. A., C.  | 2007 |   Sexual selection    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         | Life History traits  |
|    Fricke and G.     |      | affects lifespan and  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    were measured     |
|       Arnqvist       |      |   aging in the seed   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        beetle         |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Mallet, M. A., J. M. | 2011 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |    No SS+ and SS-    |
|   Bouchard, C. M.    |      | mutation-accumulation |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      treatments      |
|   Kimber and A. K.   |      |  on the X chromosome  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|     Chippindale      |      |     of Drosophila     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | melanogaster reveals  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  stronger selection   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     on males than     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        females        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Mallet, M. A. and A. | 2011 |  Inbreeding reveals   |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |   Mutation levels    |
|    K. Chippindale    |      |     stronger net      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       analysed       |
|                      |      |     selection on      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  melanogaster males:  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   implications for    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   mutation load and   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    the fitness of     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    sexual females     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Martin, O. Y. and D. | 2003 |  Costs and benefits   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Crossing took place  |
|      J. Hosken       |      |   of evolving under   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    after Gen 29,     |
|                      |      |    experimentally     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    results still     |
|                      |      |  enforced polyandry   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   contain fitness    |
|                      |      |      or monogamy      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  components though   |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Martin, O. Y. and D. | 2004 |     Reproductive      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Crossing also took  |
|      J. Hosken       |      |    consequences of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   place, it should   |
|                      |      |      population       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   still be fine as   |
|                      |      |  divergence through   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      they some       |
|                      |      |    sexual conflict    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | populations were not |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       crossed        |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Matsuyama, T. and H. | 2009 | Mating time and call  |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |    Mate choice in    |
|         Kuba         |      |  frequency of males   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      different       |
|                      |      |  between mass-reared  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     populations      |
|                      |      |  and wild strains of  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      melon fly,       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Bactrocera       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      cucurbitae       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     (Coquillett)      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       (Diptera:       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     Tephritidae)      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   McGuigan, K., D.   | 2011 |   REDUCING MUTATION   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | The control line was |
|  Petfield and M. W.  |      |  LOAD THROUGH SEXUAL  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     not enforced     |
|        Blows         |      |  SELECTION ON MALES   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | monomagous (did not  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | remove SS)., it was  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | just a control where |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  the population was  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   mutagenised. No    |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  clear SS treatment  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     as level of      |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   selection varied   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      across the      |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     generations.     |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| McKean, K. A. and L. | 2008 | Sexual selection and  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | The control line was |
|        Nunney        |      |  immune function in   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   a 1:1 SR but not   |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  enforced monogamy   |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    McLain, D. K.     | 1992 |  Population density   |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |     Field study      |
|                      |      | and the intensity of  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  sexual selection on  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    body length in     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     spatially or      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      temporally       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  restricted natural   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   populations of a    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       seed bug        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| McNamara, K. B., S.  | 2016 |    Male-biased sex    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |   No SS- (enforced   |
|  P. Robinson, M. E.  |      |    ratio does not     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    monogamy) just    |
|  Rosa, N. S. Sloan,  |      |   promote increased   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      altered SR      |
| E. van Lieshout and  |      |         sperm         |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|    L. W. Simmons     |      |  competitiveness in   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   the seed beetle,    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    Callosobruchus     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       maculatus       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| McNamara, K. B., E.  | 2014 |     A test of the     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Polygamy was still  |
| van Lieshout and L.  |      |    sexy-sperm and     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    randomly done     |
|      W. Simmons      |      |      good-sperm       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | meaning post-cop SS  |
|                      |      |  hypotheses for the   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  is only available.  |
|                      |      |     evolution of      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | Numorous measures of |
|                      |      |       polyandry       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  fitness conducted   |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Meffert, L. M., J.  | 2006 |  Testing alternative  |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |    No tsts of SS     |
|   L. Regan, S. K.    |      |  methods for purging  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
| Hicks, N. Mukana and |      |  genetic load using   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|      S. B. Day       |      |  the housefly (Musca  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     domestica L.)     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Michalczyk, L., A.  | 2011 |  Inbreeding Promotes  |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |  It does not appear  |
|  L. Millard, O. Y.   |      |  Female Promiscuity   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | the SS regimes were  |
|    Martin, A. J.     |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   enforced (fig 1)   |
|    Lumley, B. C.     |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
| Emerson, T. Chapman  |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|  and M. J. G. Gage   |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Michalczyk, L., A.  | 2011 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | No enforced monogamy |
|  L. Millard, O. Y.   |      |   Evolution Exposes   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    (no SS-), but     |
|    Martin, A. J.     |      |    Female and Male    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    different OSR     |
|    Lumley, B. C.     |      |  Responses to Sexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
| Emerson and M. J. G. |      |     Selection and     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|         Gage         |      |      Conflict in      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  Tribolium Castaneum  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Morrow, E. H., A. D. | 2008 | Assessing the extent  |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |   Not assessing SS   |
|  Stewart and W. R.   |      |    of genome-wide     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|         Rice         |      |   intralocus sexual   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     conflict via      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    experimentally     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       enforced        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    gender-limited     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       selection       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Nandy, B., P.     | 2013 |   Sperm Competitive   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Use an OSR of male  |
|   Chakraborty, V.    |      |  Ability Evolves in   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   and female bias    |
| Gupta, S. Z. Ali and |      |      Response to      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|     N. G. Prasad     |      |     Experimental      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     Alteration of     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    Operational Sex    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |         Ratio         |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Nandy, B., V. Gupta, | 2014 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |  Use an OSR of male  |
| N. Udaykumar, M. A.  |      |  Evolution of Female  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   and female bias    |
|  Samant, S. Sen and  |      |     Traits under      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|     N. G. Prasad     |      |  Different Levels of  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | Intersexual Conflict  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     in Drosophila     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     Melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Nelson, A. C., K. E. | 2013 |  Rapid adaptation to  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |   3 generations in   |
|  Colson, S. Harmon   |      |  mammalian sociality  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   mice with direct   |
|   and W. K. Potts    |      |     via sexually      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   fitness outcomes   |
|                      |      |    selected traits    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Nie, H. and K.    | 2016 | Sexual selection and  |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         | Artificial selection |
|      Kaneshiro       |      | incipient speciation  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    was conducted     |
|                      |      |      in Hawaiian      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    alongside mate    |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |        choice        |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Palopoli, M. F., C.  | 2015 |      Natural and      |     Yes      |     No     |                          |          |    No    |        2b        | Hermaphroditic, also |
|  Peden, C. Woo, K.   |      |     experimental      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  competition not SS  |
|  Akiha, M. Ary, L.   |      |  evolution of sexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    was modulated     |
|     Cruze, J. L.     |      |    conflict within    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|  Anderson and P. C.  |      |    Caenorhabditis     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|       Phillips       |      |       nematodes       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Partridge, L.     | 1980 |      Mate Choice      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Competitive success  |
|                      |      |      Increases a      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | from 1 generation of |
|                      |      |     Component of      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | populations with and |
|                      |      | Offspring Fitness in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | without mate choice  |
|                      |      |      Fruit-Flies      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Pelabon, C., L. K.  | 2014 |    The effects of     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Direct and indirect  |
|    Larsen, G. H.     |      |  sexual selection on  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       outcomes       |
|  Bolstad, A. Viken,  |      | life-history traits:  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
| I. A. Fleming and G. |      |    An experimental    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|      Rosenqvist      |      |   study on guppies    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   Perry, J. C., R.   | 2016 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |  SS was manipulated  |
| Joag, D. J. Hosken,  |      |    evolution under    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     with SPR not     |
| N. Wedell, J. Radwan |      | hyper-promiscuity in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  enforced selection  |
|     and S. Wigby     |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      conditions      |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Pischedda, A. and A. | 2005 |   Sex, mutation and   |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |  Effect of mutation  |
|     Chippindale      |      |  fitness: asymmetric  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | in diff populations  |
|                      |      |  costs and routes to  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   recovery through    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     compensatory      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       evolution       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Pischedda, A. and A. | 2006 |   Intralocus sexual   |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         | Focussed on fitness  |
|    K. Chippindale    |      |  conflict diminishes  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | effects of conflict  |
|                      |      |    the benefits of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   sexual selection    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Pitnick, S., W. D.  | 2001 |  Evolution of female  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Body size and number |
|   Brown and G. T.    |      |  remating behaviour   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | of progeny measured. |
|        Miller        |      |       following       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | Not purpose of study |
|                      |      | experimental removal  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |        though        |
|                      |      |  of sexual selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Pitnick, S., G. T.  | 2001 |  Males' evolutionary  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | male and population  |
|  Miller, J. Reagan   |      |     responses to      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   fitness outcomes   |
|    and B. Holland    |      | experimental removal  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  of sexual selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   Plesnar, A., M.    | 2011 |  The role of sexual   |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
| Konior and J. Radwan |      | selection in purging  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     the genome of     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | induced mutations in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     the bulb mite     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | (Rizoglyphus robini)  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Plesnar-Bielak, A.,  | 2013 |    No Evidence for    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |     Reproductive     |
| A. M. Skrzynecka, Z. |      |     Reproductive      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  isolation measured  |
|    M. Prokop, M.     |      |   Isolation through   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   without fitness    |
|  Kolasa, M. Dzia_o   |      |  Sexual Conflict in   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |      components      |
|    and J. Radwan     |      |     the Bulb Mite     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  Rhizoglyphus robini  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Plesnar-Bielak, A.,  | 2012 |     Mating system     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
| A. M. Skrzynecka, Z. |      |  affects population   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   M. Prokop and J.   |      |    performance and    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Radwan        |      |    extinction risk    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  under environmental  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       challenge       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Power, D. J. and L.  | 2014 |  Polyandrous females  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |     Remating was     |
|        Holman        |      |     found fitter      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   presented to the   |
|                      |      |      populations      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   females 72 hours   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | after first mating.  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | Measuring effects of |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   polyandry, thus    |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | multiple mating has  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  more of an effect.  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   Post copulatory    |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | selection will take  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    place though.     |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Power, D. J. and L.  | 2015 |     Assessing the     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |     Experiment 2     |
|        Holman        |      |  alignment of sexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  Measures affect of  |
|                      |      |      and natural      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |          SS          |
|                      |      |    selection using    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   radiomutagenized    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     seed beetles      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Price, T. A. R., G.  | 2010 |  Polyandry Prevents   |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |     Appears that     |
|  D. D. Hurst and N.  |      |      Extinction       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   individuals that   |
|        Wedell        |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   only mated once    |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | still had a choice,  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | post cop SS would be |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    enacted then.     |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | Interested in mating |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   freq over choice   |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Prokop, Z. M., M. A. | 2017 |   Do males pay for    |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |   SS was estimated   |
|     Prus, T. S.      |      |   sex? Sex-specific   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     using models     |
| Gaczorek, K. Sychta, |      |       selection       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   J. K. Palka, A.    |      | coefficients suggest  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|  Plesnar-Bielak and  |      |          not          |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|      M. Skarbo_      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Promislow, D. E. L., | 1998 |     Adult fitness     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
|  E. A. Smith and L.  |      |    consequences of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        Pearse        |      |  sexual selection in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|      Radwan, J.      | 2004 |   Effectiveness of    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |    Direct fitness    |
|                      |      |  sexual selection in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  outcomes measured   |
|                      |      |  removing mutations   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     induced with      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  ionizing radiation   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|    Radwan, J., J.    | 2004 |   Effectiveness of    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |    Direct fitness    |
| Unrug, K. Snigorska  |      |  sexual selection in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  outcomes measured   |
|   and K. Gawronska   |      |  preventing fitness   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   deterioration in    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       bulb mite       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   populations under   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    relaxed natural    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       selection       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Rundle, H. D., S. F. | 2006 | The roles of natural  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |    Direct fitness    |
| Chenoweth and M. W.  |      | and sexual selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  outcomes measured   |
|        Blows         |      | during adaptation to  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  a novel environment  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Rundle, H. D., S. F. | 2009 |  The diversification  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |     CHCs / mate      |
| Chenoweth and M. W.  |      |  of mate preferences  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  preference outcome  |
|        Blows         |      |    by natural and     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  measured alongside  |
|                      |      |   sexual selection    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  natural selection   |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Rundle, H. D., A.   | 2007 | An experimental test  |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |  Between studs and   |
|   Odeen and A. O.    |      |     for indirect      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  duds not SS+ / SS-  |
|        Mooers        |      |      benefits in      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Savic Veselinovic,  | 2013 | Sexual Selection Can  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |    No    |      No ES       |    Irradiated and    |
|        M., S.        |      |   Reduce Mutational   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    direct fitness    |
|  Pavkovic-Lucic, Z.  |      |  Load in Drosophila   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  outcomes measured   |
|  Kurbalija Novicic,  |      |      Subobscura       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   M. Jelic and M.    |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|      Andelkovic      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   _e_lija, D., I.    | 2008 | Sexual selection and  |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |    While there is    |
| Marecko and N. Tucic |      |  senescence: Do seed  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  monoandrous lines,  |
|                      |      |     beetle males      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | these lines were not |
|                      |      |   (Acanthoscelides    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | enforced and choice  |
|                      |      | obtectus, Bruchidae,  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  still existed. Put  |
|                      |      |   Coleoptera) shape   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | post-cop choice may  |
|                      |      |   the longevity of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | be stronger in other |
|                      |      |     their mates?      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   lines. This is a   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  strange setup and   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    may be hard to    |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  compare with other  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |       studies        |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Sharma, M. D., J.   | 2012 |     Antagonistic      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |     CHCs / mate      |
|    Hunt and D. J.    |      | Responses to Natural  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  preference outcome  |
|        Hosken        |      | and Sexual Selection  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  measured alongside  |
|                      |      | and the Sex-Specific  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  natural selection   |
|                      |      |     Evolution of      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       Cuticular       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    Hydrocarbons in    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  Drosophila Simulans  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Sharp, N. P. and A.  | 2008 |  Mating density and   |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |  One generation w/   |
|      F. Agrawal      |      |    the strength of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  gene freq. Also no  |
|                      |      |   sexual selection    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  enforced monogamy   |
|                      |      |  against deleterious  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      alleles in       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Sharp, N. P. and A.  | 2009 | Sexual Selection and  |      No      |            |                          |          |    No    |        1         |   Assortive mating   |
|      F. Agrawal      |      |  the Random Union of  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |        study         |
|                      |      | Gametes: Testing for  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   a Correlation in    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    Fitness between    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  Mates in Drosophila  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     melanogaster      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Simmons, L. W. and  | 2014 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |   States that "Far   |
|     R. C. Firman     |      |   Evidence for the    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | less is known of the |
|                      |      |   Evolution of the    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | fitness consequences |
|                      |      | Mammalian Baculum by  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   of variation in    |
|                      |      |   Sexual Selection    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  baculum morphology  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  for mammals." - No  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   direct link with   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  fitness advantage.  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | However the size is  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  cited as having a   |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  fitness advantage   |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Simmons, L. W. and  | 2008 |     Evolutionary      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |    Direct fitness    |
|  F. Garcia-Gonzalez  |      |  Reduction in Testes  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  outcomes measured   |
|                      |      | Size and Competitive  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     Fertilization     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  Success in Response  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  to the Experimental  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   Removal of Sexual   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |   Selection in Dung   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        Beetles        |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Simmons, L. W. and  | 2011 |     Experimental      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |  Genital morphology  |
|  F. Garcia-Gonzalez  |      |  coevolution of male  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   has conflicting    |
|                      |      |  and female genital   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | fitness outcomes for |
|                      |      |      morphology       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  males and females   |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|  Simmons, L. W., C.  | 2009 |     Evolutionary      |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |  Genital Morphology  |
|  M. House, J. Hunt   |      |  Response to Sexual   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|        and F.        |      |   Selection in Male   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|   Garcia-Gonzalez    |      |  Genital Morphology   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Snook, R. R., N. A.  | 2013 | Sexual selection and  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |    No    |    No    |        4         |     In D. pseudo     |
|   Gidaszewski, T.    |      |   the evolution of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     monogamy was     |
|  Chapman and L. W.   |      |   secondary sexual    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | enforced. Sex combs  |
|       Simmons        |      |   traits: sex comb    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | are cited as having  |
|                      |      |     evolution in      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   positive fitness   |
|                      |      |      Drosophila       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | effects at high and  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  low numbers. Would  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | not give an accurate |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  | representation of a  |
|                      |      |                       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |  fitness comparison  |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   Tilszer, M., K.    | 2006 |    Evolution under    |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  |                      |
|    Antoszczyk, N.    |      |    relaxed sexual     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
| Sa_ek, E. Zajac and  |      | conflict in the bulb  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|      J. Radwan       |      |   mite Rhizoglyphus   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |        robini         |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| van Lieshout, E., K. | 2014 |     Rapid Loss of     |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Did not use enforced |
|  B. McNamara and L.  |      |      Behavioral       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   monogamy but had   |
|      W. Simmons      |      |    Plasticity and     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |    different OSR     |
|                      |      |   Immunocompetence    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      | under Intense Sexual  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |       Selection       |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
| Whitlock, M. C. and  | 2000 |   Factors affecting   |     Yes      |    Yes     |            No            |          |    No    |        3         |  No manipulation of  |
|     D. Bourguet      |      |  the genetic load in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |          SS          |
|                      |      |      Drosophila:      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |      Synergistic      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |     epistasis and     |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  correlations among   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |  fitness components   |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+
|   Wigby, S. and T.   | 2004 | Female resistance to  |     Yes      |    Yes     |           Yes            |   Yes    |   Yes    |                  | Did not use enforced |
|       Chapman        |      | male harm evolves in  |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |   monogamy but had   |
|                      |      |      response to      |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |     different SR     |
|                      |      |    manipulation of    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
|                      |      |    sexual conflict    |              |            |                          |          |          |                  |                      |
+----------------------+------+-----------------------+--------------+------------+--------------------------+----------+----------+------------------+----------------------+

Data Extraction

The raw extracted data table is presented in the accompanying data folder. It details the type of data collected for each study (arithmatic means, SD, n, F-statistic, chi-squared, proportion etc.). The rules utilised were as follows:

  1. Arithmatic means, standard deviations/errors and sample sizes were extracted from a paper, supplementary material or a linked data repository (e.g. Data Dryad). This was possible when means and SD were reported in text or in a table. We would preferentially extract data for each experimental evolution line/replicat/family if possible and only extract data for the final reported generation (which was noted down).

  2. If we could not find the means and SD in text format we used web-plot digitizer (v.3.12) to extract data from graphs.

  3. If means were not reported then we ecxtracted a summary statistic or proportion value, which we could later convert to Hedges g’ using the compute.es package. Summary statistics included F, z, t and chi2. These conversions still required providing sample sizes for each treatment so these needed to be extractable from the study. Some summary statistics were obtained from generalized linear model summary tabels, others from straight forward ANOVAs and then some from more complex analysis such as proportional hazards statistical tests.

  4. The covariates collected were extensive (DATA TABLE) and are discussed later. They were all regarded as potentially explaining trends in effect size or bias and hence were collected.

Effect Size Calculation

Not sure what to do about these calculations. I did not really lay them out neatly and the compute.es does not really return neat values. My calculations were done in a clunkier manual way. And are shown below.

SS- will be group one with increased SS being group two

Almbro and Simmons 2014**

Brood Number (No Distinction)
mes(15.4, 18, 10.071, 10.071, 207, 207, dig = 3)
Mean Differences ES: 
 
 d [ 95 %CI] = -0.258 [ -0.452 , -0.064 ] 
  var(d) = 0.01 
  p-value(d) = 0.009 
  U3(d) = 39.814 % 
  CLES(d) = 42.757 % 
  Cliff's Delta = -0.145 
 
 g [ 95 %CI] = -0.258 [ -0.451 , -0.064 ] 
  var(g) = 0.01 
  p-value(g) = 0.009 
  U3(g) = 39.832 % 
  CLES(g) = 42.771 % 
 
 Correlation ES: 
 
 r [ 95 %CI] = -0.128 [ -0.222 , -0.032 ] 
  var(r) = 0.002 
  p-value(r) = 0.009 
 
 z [ 95 %CI] = -0.129 [ -0.226 , -0.032 ] 
  var(z) = 0.002 
  p-value(z) = 0.009 
 
 Odds Ratio ES: 
 
 OR [ 95 %CI] = 0.626 [ 0.44 , 0.89 ] 
  p-value(OR) = 0.009 
 
 Log OR [ 95 %CI] = -0.468 [ -0.82 , -0.116 ] 
  var(lOR) = 0.032 
  p-value(Log OR) = 0.009 
 
 Other: 
 
 NNT = -15.555 
 Total N = 414
Strength (Stressed)
mes(0.047, 0.094, 0.05724, 0.16217, 91, 91, dig = 3)
Mean Differences ES: 
 
 d [ 95 %CI] = -0.386 [ -0.682 , -0.091 ] 
  var(d) = 0.022 
  p-value(d) = 0.011 
  U3(d) = 34.956 % 
  CLES(d) = 39.231 % 
  Cliff's Delta = -0.215 
 
 g [ 95 %CI] = -0.385 [ -0.679 , -0.091 ] 
  var(g) = 0.022 
  p-value(g) = 0.011 
  U3(g) = 35.016 % 
  CLES(g) = 39.275 % 
 
 Correlation ES: 
 
 r [ 95 %CI] = -0.19 [ -0.327 , -0.045 ] 
  var(r) = 0.005 
  p-value(r) = 0.011 
 
 z [ 95 %CI] = -0.192 [ -0.34 , -0.045 ] 
  var(z) = 0.006 
  p-value(z) = 0.011 
 
 Odds Ratio ES: 
 
 OR [ 95 %CI] = 0.496 [ 0.29 , 0.847 ] 
  p-value(OR) = 0.011 
 
 Log OR [ 95 %CI] = -0.701 [ -1.237 , -0.166 ] 
  var(lOR) = 0.074 
  p-value(Log OR) = 0.011 
 
 Other: 
 
 NNT = -11.074 
 Total N = 182

The Meta-Analysis Dataset

Setup

Read in csv file

prelim.data <- read.csv('Preliminary data frame 22.2.18.csv')
kable(prelim.data)
Study.ID Group.ID Authors Year Species Taxon SS.density.high.to.low SS.ratio.high SS.density.high Ratio.Category Density.Category SSS.Categorical Pre.cop Post.cop Blinding Generations Enforced.Monogamy n Outcome Sex Ambiguous Outcome.Class Environment g var.g mean.low sd.low n.low mean.high sd.high n.high JIF
1 37 Almbro, M. and L. W. Simmons 2014 Onthophagus taurus Beetle 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 3 YES 182 Strength M NO Indirect Stressed 0.385 0.022 0.0470000 0.0572364 91 0.0940000 0.1621697 91 4.612
1 37 Almbro, M. and L. W. Simmons 2014 Onthophagus taurus Beetle 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 3 YES 182 Strength M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.000 0.022 0.1170000 0.1717091 91 0.1170000 0.1717091 91 4.612
1 37 Almbro, M. and L. W. Simmons 2014 Onthophagus taurus Beetle 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 3 YES 222 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Stressed 0.172 0.018 1.8920000 0.9060662 111 2.0510000 0.9376732 111 4.612
1 37 Almbro, M. and L. W. Simmons 2014 Onthophagus taurus Beetle 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 3 YES 222 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.204 0.018 2.1900000 0.9692801 111 2.3820000 0.9060662 111 4.612
1 37 Almbro, M. and L. W. Simmons 2014 Onthophagus taurus Beetle 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 2 YES 414 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated 0.258 0.010 15.4000000 10.0712462 207 18.0000000 10.0712462 207 4.612
2 14 Arbuthnott, D. and H. D. Rundle 2012 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 60.000 1.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 7 YES 400 Mutant Frequency B NO Indirect Stressed -0.011 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.864
2 14 Arbuthnott, D. and H. D. Rundle 2012 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 60.000 1.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 7 YES 400 Mutant Frequency B NO Indirect Stressed 0.434 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.864
2 14 Arbuthnott, D. and H. D. Rundle 2012 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 60.000 1.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 7 YES 400 Mutant Frequency B NO Indirect Stressed -0.064 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.864
2 14 Arbuthnott, D. and H. D. Rundle 2012 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 60.000 1.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 7 YES 400 Mutant Frequency B NO Indirect Stressed -0.037 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.864
2 14 Arbuthnott, D. and H. D. Rundle 2012 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 60.000 1.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 7 YES 400 Mutant Frequency B NO Indirect Stressed -0.129 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.864
2 14 Arbuthnott, D. and H. D. Rundle 2012 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 60.000 1.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 7 YES 400 Mutant Frequency B NO Indirect Stressed 0.032 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.864
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Lifespan M NO Indirect Stressed -0.971 0.005 30.5200000 5.9396970 450 24.2100000 7.0003571 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Lifespan F NO Indirect Stressed -0.154 0.004 34.2800000 26.9407684 450 31.3200000 4.0305087 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Fitness Senescence M NO Indirect Stressed 0.074 0.004 3.6300000 1.2727922 450 3.4300000 3.6062446 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Fitness Senescence F NO Indirect Stressed -0.087 0.004 3.9200000 1.4849242 450 4.3500000 6.7882251 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Stressed -0.868 0.005 0.0295858 0.0063640 450 0.0372000 0.0106066 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Stressed -0.148 0.004 0.0264000 0.0254558 450 0.0291000 0.0042426 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Lifespan M NO Indirect Unstressed -0.780 0.005 35.5500000 11.0308658 450 26.9400000 11.0308658 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.146 0.004 34.2800000 26.9407684 450 30.1900000 28.8499567 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Fitness Senescence M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.021 0.004 4.5000000 6.1518290 450 4.3300000 9.9702056 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Fitness Senescence F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.038 0.004 4.8200000 5.9396970 450 5.1500000 10.8187337 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed -0.855 0.005 0.2580000 0.0042426 450 0.0339000 0.0127279 450 5.210
3 35 Archer, C. R., E. Duffy, D. J. Hosken, M. Mokkonen, K. Okada, K. Oku, M. D. Sharma and J. Hunt 2015 Drosophila simulans Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 45 YES 900 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.176 0.004 0.0267000 0.0169706 450 0.0305000 0.0254558 450 5.210
5 1 Bernasconi, G. and L. Keller 2001 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 3 YES 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 1.533 0.242 0.5600000 0.3600000 10 0.9700000 0.0400000 10 2.673
5 1 Bernasconi, G. and L. Keller 2001 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 3 YES 20 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.123 0.184 63.0000000 27.0000000 10 60.0000000 19.0000000 10 2.673
6 15 Brommer, J. E., C. Fricke, D. A. Edward and T. Chapman 2012 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 4 YES 93 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Unstressed -0.378 0.043 1.0000000 0.3316625 44 0.8700000 0.3500000 49 4.864
7 29 Crudgington, H. S., A. P. Beckerman, L. Br_stle, K. Green and R. R. Snook 2005 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 21 YES 200 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed -0.216 0.020 76.9000000 47.0000000 100 66.4000000 50.0000000 100 4.464
7 29 Crudgington, H. S., A. P. Beckerman, L. Br_stle, K. Green and R. R. Snook 2005 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 28 YES 200 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.280 0.020 120.6000000 119.0000000 100 153.6000000 116.0000000 100 4.464
7 29 Crudgington, H. S., A. P. Beckerman, L. Br_stle, K. Green and R. R. Snook 2005 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 28 YES 200 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Stressed 0.365 0.045 0.7810000 0.0700000 100 0.8740000 0.0500000 100 4.464
7 29 Crudgington, H. S., A. P. Beckerman, L. Br_stle, K. Green and R. R. Snook 2005 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 21 YES 200 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.244 0.020 108.5000000 44.0000000 100 97.9000000 43.0000000 100 4.464
7 29 Crudgington, H. S., A. P. Beckerman, L. Br_stle, K. Green and R. R. Snook 2005 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 28 YES 200 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.281 0.020 164.1000000 119.0000000 100 197.5000000 119.0000000 100 4.464
7 29 Crudgington, H. S., A. P. Beckerman, L. Br_stle, K. Green and R. R. Snook 2005 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 28 YES 200 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.311 0.155 0.9680000 0.0400000 100 0.9450000 0.0400000 100 4.464
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 62 YES 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed -0.168 0.184 15.7249071 1.9984654 10 15.3903346 1.7633519 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 61 YES 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed -0.576 0.192 15.3903346 2.1160222 10 14.3122677 1.4106815 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 60 YES 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.311 0.226 15.0185874 1.0580111 10 16.3940520 0.9404543 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 58 YES 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.512 0.190 15.7992565 1.6457951 10 16.6542751 1.5282383 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 62 YES 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.373 0.231 15.7249071 1.9984654 10 18.0669145 1.1755679 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 61 YES 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.190 0.219 15.3903346 2.1160222 10 17.6208178 1.4106815 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 60 YES 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.305 0.226 15.0185874 1.0580111 10 17.1003718 1.8809086 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 58 YES 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.928 0.276 15.7992565 1.6457951 10 18.5873606 1.0580111 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 62 NO 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.713 0.257 15.3903346 1.7633519 10 18.0700000 1.1755679 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 61 NO 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 2.248 0.310 14.3122677 1.4106815 10 17.6200000 1.4106815 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 60 NO 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.458 0.189 16.3940520 0.9404543 10 17.1000000 1.8809086 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 58 NO 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.414 0.233 16.6542751 1.5282383 10 18.5900000 1.0580111 10 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 60 YES 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.060 0.096 622.3853211 367.6177813 20 642.9357798 301.9717489 20 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 59 YES 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed -0.089 0.096 760.3669725 407.0054007 20 733.9449541 354.4885748 20 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 57 YES 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed -0.214 0.097 728.0733945 407.0054007 20 648.8073394 315.1009554 20 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 60 YES 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.515 0.099 622.4000000 367.6177800 20 819.0825688 380.7469877 20 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 59 YES 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.768 0.103 760.4000000 407.0054000 20 1200.7339450 682.7187366 20 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 57 YES 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 1.068 0.110 728.1000000 407.0054000 20 1150.8256880 367.6177813 20 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 60 NO 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.503 0.099 642.9357798 301.9717489 20 819.0825688 380.7469877 20 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 59 NO 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.841 0.105 733.9449541 354.4885748 20 1200.7339450 682.7187366 20 5.429
8 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows, N. S. Badcock and R. R. Snook 2009 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 57 NO 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 1.437 0.122 648.8073394 315.1009554 20 1150.8256880 367.6177813 20 5.429
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 55 YES 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.861 0.111 237.3000000 55.0072700 20 169.5000000 95.8836795 18 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 54 YES 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.655 0.118 210.6000000 67.6189300 17 170.5000000 50.7141992 17 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 55 YES 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.026 0.123 0.5230000 0.1833600 20 0.5350000 0.2460732 18 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 54 YES 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.360 0.140 0.4960000 0.1772900 17 0.6590000 0.2680019 17 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 55 YES 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -1.447 0.132 237.3000000 55.0072700 20 150.0000000 63.4958266 17 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 54 YES 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.739 0.114 210.6000000 67.6189300 17 154.1000000 80.6396305 19 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 55 YES 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.620 0.160 0.5230000 0.1833600 20 0.7750000 0.2185246 17 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 54 YES 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.450 0.140 0.4960000 0.1772900 17 0.6930000 0.2310216 19 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 55 NO 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.233 0.110 169.5000000 95.8836795 18 150.0000000 63.4958266 17 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 54 NO 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.235 0.107 170.5000000 50.7141992 17 154.1000000 80.6396305 19 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 55 NO 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.590 0.160 0.5350000 0.2460732 18 0.7750000 0.2185246 17 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 54 NO 18 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.080 0.150 0.6590000 0.2680019 17 0.6930000 0.2310216 19 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 55 YES 18 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.520 0.105 500.3000000 174.4133000 20 403.8000000 261.3466663 18 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 54 YES 18 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.843 0.123 474.7000000 195.0229000 17 315.4000000 173.5827468 17 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 55 YES 18 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -2.487 0.188 403.8000000 261.3466663 18 228.1000000 152.5549081 17 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 54 YES 18 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -1.065 0.122 315.4000000 173.5827468 17 266.1000000 188.3044344 19 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 55 NO 18 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.796 0.118 500.3000000 174.4133000 20 228.1000000 152.5549081 17 3.636
9 29 Crudgington, H. S., S. Fellows and R. R. Snook 2010 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 1.750 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 54 NO 18 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.266 0.108 474.7000000 195.0229000 17 266.1000000 188.3044344 19 3.636
10 29 Debelle, A., M. G. Ritchie and R. R. Snook 2016 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 98 YES 2038 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.555 0.002 2.2200000 0.0730000 1019 2.2600000 0.0710000 1019 2.792
10 29 Debelle, A., M. G. Ritchie and R. R. Snook 2016 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 98 YES 2038 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.111 0.002 2.4500000 0.0820000 1019 2.4600000 0.0980000 1019 2.792
10 29 Debelle, A., M. G. Ritchie and R. R. Snook 2016 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 98 YES 2038 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed -0.663 0.004 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.792
10 29 Debelle, A., M. G. Ritchie and R. R. Snook 2016 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 98 YES 2038 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed -0.655 0.004 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.792
10 29 Debelle, A., M. G. Ritchie and R. R. Snook 2016 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 98 YES 2038 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Unstressed -0.197 0.002 126.5000000 15.8000000 1019 129.4000000 13.5000000 1019 2.792
10 29 Debelle, A., M. G. Ritchie and R. R. Snook 2016 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 98 YES 2038 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Unstressed 2.486 0.003 153.8000000 19.7000000 1019 113.6000000 11.6000000 1019 2.792
11 2 Demont, M., V. M. Grazer, L. Michalczyk, A. L. Millard, S. H. Sbilordo, B. C. Emerson, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2014 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 36 YES 38 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 1.810 0.144 91.7000000 9.4400000 19 105.7700000 5.1700000 19 2.606
11 2 Demont, M., V. M. Grazer, L. Michalczyk, A. L. Millard, S. H. Sbilordo, B. C. Emerson, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2014 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 36 YES 38 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.299 0.102 93.9700000 21.3500000 19 101.2400000 26.0600000 19 2.606
11 2 Demont, M., V. M. Grazer, L. Michalczyk, A. L. Millard, S. H. Sbilordo, B. C. Emerson, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2014 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 36 YES 24 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.222 0.156 106.8500000 6.2000000 12 108.6500000 9.2000000 12 2.606
11 2 Demont, M., V. M. Grazer, L. Michalczyk, A. L. Millard, S. H. Sbilordo, B. C. Emerson, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2014 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 36 YES 24 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.279 0.209 0.3000000 0.0500000 12 0.4200000 0.0500000 12 2.606
11 2 Demont, M., V. M. Grazer, L. Michalczyk, A. L. Millard, S. H. Sbilordo, B. C. Emerson, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2014 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 36 YES 44 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed 0.415 0.090 24.0000000 8.9442719 20 27.0000000 4.8989795 24 2.606
11 2 Demont, M., V. M. Grazer, L. Michalczyk, A. L. Millard, S. H. Sbilordo, B. C. Emerson, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2014 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 36 YES 45 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed 0.407 0.088 23.0000000 9.3808315 22 26.0000000 4.7958315 23 2.606
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Mating Latency M NO Indirect Stressed -0.324 0.020 6.5230000 5.4190000 102 5.0170000 3.6600000 102 8.090
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Mating Duration M NO Ambiguous Stressed 0.219 0.020 11.9500000 2.9810000 102 12.6440000 3.3310000 102 8.090
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Mating Latency M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.099 0.019 5.5121951 3.5893711 102 5.8885017 3.9412702 102 8.090
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Mating Duration M NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.393 0.020 9.1892361 2.5424101 102 10.4565972 3.7697805 102 8.090
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.070 0.019 72.3810000 35.0550000 102 74.8857645 35.9428779 102 8.090
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.015 0.019 0.6410000 0.5090000 102 0.6491071 0.5545710 102 8.090
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 0.001 0.019 0.7750000 0.6600000 102 0.7759516 0.7391160 102 8.090
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.312 0.020 81.9595782 34.6116602 102 71.0632689 35.0553994 102 8.090
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.099 0.019 0.5946429 0.5004665 102 0.6446429 0.5049752 102 8.090
12 16 Edward, D. A., C. Fricke and T. Chapman 2010 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 0.760 75.00 76.00 High Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 70 NO 204 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.049 0.019 0.7157439 0.6919384 102 0.7510381 0.7495999 102 8.090
13 6 Firman, R. C. 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 16 YES 63 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.396 0.080 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.248
13 6 Firman, R. C. 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 16 YES 63 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed -1.258 0.114 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.248
13 6 Firman, R. C. 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 16 YES 63 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed -0.352 0.076 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.248
13 6 Firman, R. C. 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 16 YES 63 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 1.316 0.146 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.248
13 6 Firman, R. C. 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 16 YES 63 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 1.196 0.132 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.248
13 6 Firman, R. C. 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 16 YES 63 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 1.142 0.104 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.248
13 6 Firman, R. C. 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 16 YES 63 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 0.131 0.072 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.248
13 6 Firman, R. C. 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 16 YES 63 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 1.747 0.360 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.248
14 6 Firman, R. C. 2014 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 25 YES 30 Male Attractiveness M NO Indirect Unstressed -1.177 0.149 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.248
15 6 Firman, R. C., L. Y. Cheam and L. W. Simmons 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 8 YES 54 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Not Stated 0.303 0.073 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.276
15 6 Firman, R. C., L. Y. Cheam and L. W. Simmons 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 8 YES 54 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Not Stated 1.844 0.105 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.276
16 6 Firman, R. C., F. Garcia-Gonzalez, E. Thyer, S. Wheeler, Z. Yamin, M. Yuan and L. W. Simmons 2015 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Blind 18 YES 60 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Not Stated 1.003 0.073 0.7010000 0.0492950 30 0.7470000 0.0438178 30 4.007
17 6 Firman, R. C., M. Gomendio, E. R. S. Roldan and L. W. Simmons 2014 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 24 YES 88 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated -0.963 0.068 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.832
17 6 Firman, R. C., M. Gomendio, E. R. S. Roldan and L. W. Simmons 2014 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 24 YES 41 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated -1.733 0.349 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.832
17 6 Firman, R. C., M. Gomendio, E. R. S. Roldan and L. W. Simmons 2014 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 24 YES 78 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated -1.717 0.111 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.832
17 6 Firman, R. C., M. Gomendio, E. R. S. Roldan and L. W. Simmons 2014 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 24 YES 55 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated -0.974 0.115 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.832
17 6 Firman, R. C., M. Gomendio, E. R. S. Roldan and L. W. Simmons 2014 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 24 YES 86 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated -0.599 0.102 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.832
17 6 Firman, R. C., M. Gomendio, E. R. S. Roldan and L. W. Simmons 2014 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 24 YES 55 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated -0.904 0.159 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.832
17 6 Firman, R. C., M. Gomendio, E. R. S. Roldan and L. W. Simmons 2014 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 24 YES 36 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated -0.504 0.199 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.832
18 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2010 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 8 YES 144 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Not Stated 0.399 0.026 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.521
18 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2010 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 7 YES 40 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed -0.564 0.100 17.5500000 5.4112845 20 14.4500000 5.3665631 20 3.521
18 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2010 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 7 YES 40 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.328 0.097 16.1500000 4.1143651 20 14.5500000 5.3665631 20 3.521
18 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2010 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 10 YES 144 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated 0.668 0.029 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.521
18 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2010 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 8 YES 128 Body Size B NO Ambiguous Not Stated -0.364 0.031 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.521
19 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2011 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 12 YES 128 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed -1.008 0.035 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.521
20 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2012 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 15 YES 144 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.784 0.030 4.9400000 2.2910260 72 6.6500000 2.0364675 72 3.521
20 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2012 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 15 YES 128 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.213 0.031 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.521
20 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2012 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 15 YES 128 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.416 0.032 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.521
20 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2012 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 15 YES 128 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 0.014 0.031 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.521
20 6 Firman, R. C. and L. W. Simmons 2012 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 15 YES 128 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 0.408 0.032 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.521
22 9 Fricke, C. and G. Arnqvist 2007 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 35 YES 155 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Not Stated 0.080 0.026 0.0011635 0.0001053 77 0.0011720 0.0001073 78 4.502
22 9 Fricke, C. and G. Arnqvist 2007 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 35 YES 155 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Not Stated 0.102 0.026 0.0009178 0.0000963 77 0.0009283 0.0001084 77 4.502
22 9 Fricke, C. and G. Arnqvist 2007 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 35 YES 76 Development Rate B NO Ambiguous Stressed -0.453 0.053 0.8289099 0.0286151 38 0.8135570 0.0377825 38 4.502
22 9 Fricke, C. and G. Arnqvist 2007 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 35 YES 79 Development Rate B NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.772 0.053 0.8251609 0.0378719 39 0.8534363 0.0346177 40 4.502
22 9 Fricke, C. and G. Arnqvist 2007 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 35 YES 76 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed -0.579 0.054 419.3947368 34.3546995 38 397.4210526 40.5573545 38 4.502
22 9 Fricke, C. and G. Arnqvist 2007 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 35 YES 79 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.185 0.050 292.2051282 55.6900159 39 301.0500000 37.3678526 40 4.502
22 9 Fricke, C. and G. Arnqvist 2007 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 35 YES 76 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Stressed -0.476 0.053 0.5462428 0.0780889 38 0.5107408 0.0691831 38 4.502
22 9 Fricke, C. and G. Arnqvist 2007 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 35 YES 79 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed 0.543 0.052 0.4180605 0.0784570 39 0.4575765 0.0652579 40 4.502
23 7 Fritzsche, K., I. Booksmythe and G. Arnqvist 2016 Megabruchidius dorsalis Beetle 1.000 5.00 150.00 High High High 1 1 Blind 20 NO 1200 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Not Stated -0.056 0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.851
23 7 Fritzsche, K., I. Booksmythe and G. Arnqvist 2016 Megabruchidius dorsalis Beetle 1.000 5.00 150.00 High High High 1 1 Blind 20 NO 1200 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated -0.031 0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.851
23 7 Fritzsche, K., I. Booksmythe and G. Arnqvist 2016 Megabruchidius dorsalis Beetle 1.000 5.00 150.00 High High High 1 1 Blind 20 NO 1200 Lifespan M NO Indirect Not Stated -0.066 0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.851
23 7 Fritzsche, K., I. Booksmythe and G. Arnqvist 2016 Megabruchidius dorsalis Beetle 1.000 5.00 150.00 High High High 1 1 Blind 20 NO 1200 Lifespan F NO Indirect Not Stated -0.083 0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.851
24 30 Fritzsche, K., N. Timmermeyer, M. Wolter and N. K. Michiels 2014 Caenorhabditis remanei Nematode 1.000 5.00 60.00 High Medium High 0 0 Not Blind 20 NO 90 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Not Stated -0.197 0.044 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
24 30 Fritzsche, K., N. Timmermeyer, M. Wolter and N. K. Michiels 2014 Caenorhabditis remanei Nematode 1.000 5.00 60.00 High Medium High 0 0 Not Blind 20 NO 256 Mating Success M NO Indirect Not Stated -0.041 0.016 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
24 30 Fritzsche, K., N. Timmermeyer, M. Wolter and N. K. Michiels 2014 Caenorhabditis remanei Nematode 1.000 5.00 60.00 High Medium High 0 0 Not Blind 20 NO 256 Mating Success M NO Indirect Not Stated -0.065 0.016 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
24 30 Fritzsche, K., N. Timmermeyer, M. Wolter and N. K. Michiels 2014 Caenorhabditis remanei Nematode 1.000 5.00 60.00 High Medium High 0 0 Not Blind 20 NO 256 Mating Success M NO Indirect Not Stated -0.078 0.016 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
24 30 Fritzsche, K., N. Timmermeyer, M. Wolter and N. K. Michiels 2014 Caenorhabditis remanei Nematode 1.000 5.00 60.00 High Medium High 0 0 Not Blind 20 NO 256 Mating Success M NO Indirect Not Stated -0.267 0.016 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
24 30 Fritzsche, K., N. Timmermeyer, M. Wolter and N. K. Michiels 2014 Caenorhabditis remanei Nematode 1.000 5.00 60.00 High Medium High 0 0 Not Blind 20 NO 184 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Not Stated 0.095 0.022 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
24 30 Fritzsche, K., N. Timmermeyer, M. Wolter and N. K. Michiels 2014 Caenorhabditis remanei Nematode 1.000 5.00 60.00 High Medium High 0 0 Not Blind 20 NO 184 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Not Stated 0.407 0.022 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
24 30 Fritzsche, K., N. Timmermeyer, M. Wolter and N. K. Michiels 2014 Caenorhabditis remanei Nematode 1.000 5.00 60.00 High Medium High 0 0 Not Blind 20 NO 392 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Not Stated 0.059 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
24 30 Fritzsche, K., N. Timmermeyer, M. Wolter and N. K. Michiels 2014 Caenorhabditis remanei Nematode 1.000 5.00 60.00 High Medium High 0 0 Not Blind 20 NO 392 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Not Stated 0.219 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
26 10 Gay, L., D. J. Hosken, R. Vasudev, T. Tregenza and P. E. Eady 2009 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 60.000 1.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 90 YES 80 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 1.971 0.073 1.8700000 0.0822192 40 2.0400000 0.0885438 40 3.816
26 10 Gay, L., D. J. Hosken, R. Vasudev, T. Tregenza and P. E. Eady 2009 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 60.000 1.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 90 YES 80 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.385 0.061 0.4500000 0.1201666 40 0.6400000 0.1517893 40 3.816
26 10 Gay, L., D. J. Hosken, R. Vasudev, T. Tregenza and P. E. Eady 2009 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 60.000 1.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 90 YES 80 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.661 0.052 0.1571000 0.0059000 40 0.1626000 0.0103000 40 3.816
27 2 Grazer, V. M., M. Demont, L. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2014 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 39 YES 228 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Stressed 0.211 0.018 149.9000000 174.9000000 114 181.6000000 119.5000000 114 3.368
27 2 Grazer, V. M., M. Demont, L. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2014 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 39 YES 240 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Unstressed 0.214 0.017 240.6000000 189.7000000 120 291.5000000 275.6000000 120 3.368
28 2 Hangartner, S., L. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 49 YES 66 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.141 0.059 6.9700000 1.7400000 33 6.7000000 2.0300000 33 2.591
28 2 Hangartner, S., L. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 49 YES 66 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.848 0.065 6.3300000 1.3400000 33 7.7900000 2.0000000 33 2.591
28 2 Hangartner, S., L. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 49 YES 288 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Stressed 0.175 0.014 80.8600000 41.5400000 144 87.9200000 39.1000000 144 2.591
28 2 Hangartner, S., L. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 49 YES 288 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Stressed 0.089 0.014 85.0000000 41.5400000 144 88.9400000 46.4300000 144 2.591
28 2 Hangartner, S., L. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 49 YES 288 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.097 0.014 92.8100000 35.8400000 144 89.2100000 38.2800000 144 2.591
28 2 Hangartner, S., L. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 49 YES 288 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.070 0.014 87.9900000 35.8400000 144 90.2900000 29.3200000 144 2.591
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 72 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.107 0.054 6.0300000 2.5400000 36 5.7500000 2.6200000 36 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 72 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.121 0.054 6.8100000 2.6200000 36 7.1300000 2.6200000 36 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 72 Immunity B NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.281 0.055 6.8400000 3.6700000 36 5.8200000 3.5000000 36 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 72 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.043 0.054 6.1400000 2.5400000 36 5.7500000 2.6200000 36 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 72 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.203 0.055 7.3400000 2.5400000 36 7.1300000 2.6200000 36 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 72 Immunity B NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.074 0.054 7.1100000 3.5000000 36 5.8200000 3.5000000 36 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 72 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.150 0.055 6.1400000 2.5400000 36 6.0300000 2.5400000 36 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 72 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.081 0.054 7.3400000 2.5400000 36 6.8100000 2.6200000 36 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 72 Immunity B NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.361 0.394 7.1100000 3.5000000 36 6.8400000 3.6700000 36 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Stressed -0.073 0.014 1.5000000 2.6800000 144 1.7100000 3.0500000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Stressed 0.035 0.014 1.4600000 2.9600000 144 1.3600000 2.7800000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.164 0.014 2.1100000 3.3300000 144 1.6200000 2.5900000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.022 0.014 2.6900000 4.3500000 144 2.7900000 4.8100000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Stressed 0.013 0.014 1.6700000 2.9600000 144 1.7100000 3.0500000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Stressed -0.025 0.014 1.4300000 2.7800000 144 1.3600000 2.7800000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.029 0.014 2.2100000 3.5200000 144 1.6200000 2.5900000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.068 0.014 2.4100000 3.8900000 144 2.7900000 4.8100000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Stressed -0.060 0.014 1.6700000 2.9600000 144 1.5000000 2.6800000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Stressed 0.010 0.014 1.4300000 2.7800000 144 1.4600000 2.9600000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 288 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.190 0.014 2.2100000 3.5200000 144 2.1100000 3.3300000 144 3.264
29 2 Hangartner, S., S. H. Sbilordo, _. Michalczyk, M. J. G. Gage and O. Y. Martin 2013 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 56 NO 144 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.087 0.014 2.4100000 3.8900000 144 2.6900000 4.3500000 144 3.264
30 17 Holland, B. 2002 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 38 YES 89 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed -0.116 0.015 11.5900000 10.1800000 133 10.6600000 4.9500000 133 3.516
30 17 Holland, B. 2002 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.500 4.00 5.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 51 YES 89 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.070 0.015 14.4300000 3.2800000 133 14.8100000 6.9300000 133 3.516
31 18 Holland, B. and W. R. Rice 1999 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 47 YES 76 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed -0.305 0.018 11.2400000 10.6600000 114 8.9300000 3.6000000 114 10.260
32 19 Hollis, B., J. L. Fierst and D. Houle 2009 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 8 YES 27 Mutant Frequency M NO Indirect Stressed 0.807 0.053 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.429
32 19 Hollis, B., J. L. Fierst and D. Houle 2009 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 8 YES 27 Mutant Frequency M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.237 0.049 0.9410000 1.7760000 40 0.3990000 2.6590000 40 5.429
33 19 Hollis, B. and D. Houle 2011 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 60 YES 120 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Stressed -0.304 0.011 126.5900000 28.9794410 180 117.6000000 29.1136051 180 3.276
33 19 Hollis, B. and D. Houle 2011 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 60 YES 164 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.031 0.008 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.276
33 19 Hollis, B. and D. Houle 2011 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 60 YES 164 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Stressed -0.064 0.008 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.276
34 19 Hollis, B. and T. J. Kawecki 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 100 YES 38 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Stressed 0.038 0.062 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
34 19 Hollis, B. and T. J. Kawecki 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 100 YES 90 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Stressed 0.194 0.043 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.051
34 19 Hollis, B. and T. J. Kawecki 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 100 YES 17 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 1.216 0.091 0.6010000 0.2950000 23 0.8760000 0.1380000 28 5.051
34 19 Hollis, B. and T. J. Kawecki 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 100 YES 21 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 0.659 0.066 0.5530000 0.3660000 30 0.7710000 0.2860000 33 5.051
34 19 Hollis, B. and T. J. Kawecki 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 100 YES 15 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 0.830 0.090 0.6100000 0.3400000 22 0.8530000 0.2300000 23 5.051
35 19 Hollis, B., L. Keller and T. J. Kawecki 2017 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 139 YES 48 Development Rate M NO Ambiguous Stressed -0.482 0.028 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.201
35 19 Hollis, B., L. Keller and T. J. Kawecki 2017 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 139 YES 48 Development Rate F NO Ambiguous Stressed 0.414 0.028 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.201
35 19 Hollis, B., L. Keller and T. J. Kawecki 2017 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 162 YES 60 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Stressed 0.000 0.022 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.201
35 19 Hollis, B., L. Keller and T. J. Kawecki 2017 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 162 YES 60 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Stressed -0.238 0.022 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.201
35 19 Hollis, B., L. Keller and T. J. Kawecki 2017 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 117 YES 44 Fitness Senescence M YES Indirect Stressed 0.500 0.031 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.201
35 19 Hollis, B., L. Keller and T. J. Kawecki 2017 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 117 YES 45 Fitness Senescence F YES Indirect Stressed 0.017 0.030 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.201
36 29 Immonen, E., R. R. Snook and M. G. Ritchie 2014 Drosophila pseudoobscura Fly 3.500 6.00 7.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 100 YES 30 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.636 0.046 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.320
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 30 NO 110 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.306 0.120 780.1295325 24.5249313 169 773.1405125 20.8806168 160 3.368
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 30 NO 107 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.290 0.013 879.0553188 25.2349182 160 870.6142500 32.5085570 160 3.368
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 30 NO 27 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.745 0.053 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.368
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 31 NO 27 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.490 0.051 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.368
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 50 NO 27 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.545 0.051 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.368
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 58 NO 27 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.379 0.050 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.368
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 30 NO 27 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.228 0.049 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.368
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 31 NO 27 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.300 0.050 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.368
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 50 NO 27 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.108 0.049 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.368
37 20 Innocenti, P., I. Flis and E. H. Morrow 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 96.00 Low High Medium 0 1 Not Blind 58 NO 27 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.080 0.049 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.368
38 3 Jacomb, F., J. Marsh and L. Holman 2016 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Blind 5 YES 320 Pesticide Resistance B NO Ambiguous Stressed 1.246 0.005 0.8560000 0.0210000 480 0.8920000 0.0350000 480 4.201
38 3 Jacomb, F., J. Marsh and L. Holman 2016 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Blind 5 YES 176 Pesticide Resistance B NO Ambiguous Unstressed -1.001 0.005 0.0880000 0.0850000 480 0.0270000 0.0140000 48 4.201
39 32 Jarzebowska, M. and J. Radwan 2010 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 8 YES 72 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.390 0.019 0.7390000 0.5240000 96 0.8080000 0.4010000 120 5.659
39 32 Jarzebowska, M. and J. Radwan 2010 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 8 YES 72 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.190 0.020 0.8350000 0.4730000 96 0.7880000 0.5730000 120 5.659
39 32 Jarzebowska, M. and J. Radwan 2010 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 8 YES 11 Extinction Rate B NO Direct Stressed 0.752 0.133 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.659
39 32 Jarzebowska, M. and J. Radwan 2010 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 8 YES 72 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Stressed 0.150 0.019 37.9100000 27.9900000 96 51.3200000 38.5200000 120 5.659
39 32 Jarzebowska, M. and J. Radwan 2010 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 8 YES 72 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed -0.088 0.019 70.4400000 32.3000000 96 61.8700000 54.1700000 120 5.659
40 6 Klemme, I. and R. C. Firman 2013 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 18 YES 12 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 0.769 0.114 0.2800000 0.4200000 18 0.7200000 0.6700000 18 3.068
40 6 Klemme, I. and R. C. Firman 2013 Mus domesticus Mouse 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Not Blind 18 YES 12 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.946 0.119 0.3400000 0.3900000 18 0.7900000 0.5300000 18 3.068
41 4 Lumley, A. J., L. Michalczyk, J. J. N. Kitson, L. G. Spurgin, C. A. Morrison, J. L. Godwin, M. E. Dickinson, O. Y. Martin, B. C. Emerson, T. Chapman and M. J. G. Gage 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.000 9.00 100.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 56 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Stressed 0.576 0.025 NA NA NA NA NA NA 38.138
41 4 Lumley, A. J., L. Michalczyk, J. J. N. Kitson, L. G. Spurgin, C. A. Morrison, J. L. Godwin, M. E. Dickinson, O. Y. Martin, B. C. Emerson, T. Chapman and M. J. G. Gage 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 20 YES 16 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Stressed 0.559 0.084 NA NA NA NA NA NA 38.138
41 4 Lumley, A. J., L. Michalczyk, J. J. N. Kitson, L. G. Spurgin, C. A. Morrison, J. L. Godwin, M. E. Dickinson, O. Y. Martin, B. C. Emerson, T. Chapman and M. J. G. Gage 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.000 9.00 100.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 56 Extinction Rate B NO Direct Stressed 0.522 0.024 NA NA NA NA NA NA 38.138
41 4 Lumley, A. J., L. Michalczyk, J. J. N. Kitson, L. G. Spurgin, C. A. Morrison, J. L. Godwin, M. E. Dickinson, O. Y. Martin, B. C. Emerson, T. Chapman and M. J. G. Gage 2015 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 20 YES 16 Extinction Rate B NO Direct Stressed 0.798 0.087 NA NA NA NA NA NA 38.138
42 11 Maklakov, A. A., R. Bonduriansky and R. C. Brooks 2009 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 50.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 YES 11 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Not Stated -0.958 0.133 155.1200000 37.7600000 16 118.0000000 37.7600000 16 5.429
43 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2003 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 25.000 1.00 50.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 29 YES 10 Lifespan F YES Indirect Unstressed 0.841 0.138 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.833
43 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2003 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 25.000 1.00 50.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 29 YES 10 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.920 0.140 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.833
43 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2003 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 25.000 1.00 50.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 29 YES 10 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 1.038 0.144 28.2000000 15.4532035 15 49.2000000 23.1604404 15 3.833
43 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2003 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 25.000 1.00 50.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 29 YES 10 Lifespan F NO Indirect Stressed -1.314 0.155 2.2130508 0.0600641 15 2.1161864 0.0817265 15 3.833
44 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2004 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 25.000 1.00 50.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 42 YES 12 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.421 0.159 34.9043478 21.5075526 12 42.9391304 14.7600851 12 3.833
44 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2004 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 250.000 1.00 500.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 42 YES 12 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.075 0.155 34.9043478 21.5075526 12 33.4434783 15.6035186 12 3.833
44 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2004 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 10.000 1.00 500.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 42 NO 12 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.603 0.163 42.9391304 14.7600851 12 33.4434783 15.6035186 12 3.833
44 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2004 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 25.000 1.00 50.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 42 YES 24 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.405 0.082 17.3460898 2.4943223 24 16.3327787 2.4698682 24 3.833
44 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2004 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 250.000 1.00 500.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 42 YES 24 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.638 0.085 17.3460898 2.4943223 24 15.8086522 2.2497809 24 3.833
44 5 Martin, O. Y. and D. J. Hosken 2004 Sepsis cynipsea Fly 10.000 1.00 500.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 42 NO 24 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.216 0.081 16.3327787 2.4698682 24 15.8086522 2.2497809 24 3.833
45 33 McGuigan, K., D. Petfield and M. W. Blows 2011 Drosophila serrata Fly 2.405 3.81 4.81 High Low Medium 1 0 Not Blind 23 YES 292 Mating Success M NO Indirect Stressed 0.034 0.014 0.4997000 0.3400000 146 0.5097000 0.2460000 146 5.146
45 33 McGuigan, K., D. Petfield and M. W. Blows 2011 Drosophila serrata Fly 2.405 3.81 4.81 High Low Medium 1 0 Not Blind 26 YES 208 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.114 0.019 49.9300000 22.7000000 104 52.1740000 16.1000000 104 5.146
46 21 McKean, K. A. and L. Nunney 2008 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.700 2.40 170.00 Low High High 1 1 Not Blind 58 NO 40 Body Size B YES Ambiguous Unstressed 1.528 0.242 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.737
46 21 McKean, K. A. and L. Nunney 2008 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.700 2.40 170.00 Low High High 1 1 Not Blind 58 NO 40 Development Rate B NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.853 0.105 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.737
46 21 McKean, K. A. and L. Nunney 2008 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.700 2.40 170.00 Low High High 1 1 Not Blind 58 NO 40 Development Rate B NO Ambiguous Unstressed 3.124 0.218 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.737
46 21 McKean, K. A. and L. Nunney 2008 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.700 2.40 170.00 Low High High 1 1 Not Blind 58 NO 40 Development Rate B NO Ambiguous Unstressed 2.655 0.184 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.737
46 21 McKean, K. A. and L. Nunney 2008 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.700 2.40 170.00 Low High High 1 1 Not Blind 58 NO 52 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.839 0.081 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.737
46 21 McKean, K. A. and L. Nunney 2008 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.700 2.40 170.00 Low High High 1 1 Not Blind 58 NO 52 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.598 0.099 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.737
46 21 McKean, K. A. and L. Nunney 2008 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.700 2.40 170.00 Low High High 1 1 Not Blind 58 NO 52 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.907 0.110 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.737
46 21 McKean, K. A. and L. Nunney 2008 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.700 2.40 170.00 Low High High 1 1 Not Blind 58 NO 80 Immunity B NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.911 0.054 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.737
47 28 McNamara, K. B., S. P. Robinson, M. E. Rosa, N. S. Sloan, E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2016 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 32 NO 153 Ejaculate Quality and Production M YES Indirect Unstressed -0.106 0.027 2.7000000 0.8442748 88 2.6000000 1.0480935 65 4.259
47 28 McNamara, K. B., S. P. Robinson, M. E. Rosa, N. S. Sloan, E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2016 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 32 NO 145 Ejaculate Quality and Production M YES Indirect Unstressed -0.157 0.028 0.1600000 0.0728835 83 0.1500000 0.0472440 62 4.259
47 28 McNamara, K. B., S. P. Robinson, M. E. Rosa, N. S. Sloan, E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2016 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 32 NO 202 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.100 0.020 0.5700000 0.1014889 103 0.5800000 0.0994987 99 4.259
47 28 McNamara, K. B., S. P. Robinson, M. E. Rosa, N. S. Sloan, E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2016 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 32 NO 101 Ejaculate Quality and Production M YES Indirect Unstressed -0.280 0.039 0.8600000 0.1428286 51 0.8200000 0.1414214 50 4.259
47 28 McNamara, K. B., S. P. Robinson, M. E. Rosa, N. S. Sloan, E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2016 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 32 NO 127 Mating Duration M YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.371 0.032 534.6200000 204.1600000 64 466.0200000 160.0944118 63 4.259
47 28 McNamara, K. B., S. P. Robinson, M. E. Rosa, N. S. Sloan, E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2016 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 32 NO 127 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.156 0.031 34.2600000 18.7200000 64 37.1700000 18.2556840 63 4.259
47 28 McNamara, K. B., S. P. Robinson, M. E. Rosa, N. S. Sloan, E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2016 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 32 NO 125 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.315 0.032 0.6700000 0.3149603 62 0.7700000 0.3174902 63 4.259
48 12 McNamara, K. B., E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2014 Teleogryllus oceanicus Cricket 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Blind 1 YES 351 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.568 0.012 0.9400000 0.3200000 179 1.0800000 0.1300000 172 3.177
48 12 McNamara, K. B., E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2014 Teleogryllus oceanicus Cricket 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Blind 1 YES 336 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed 0.000 0.012 1.6500000 3.4000000 175 1.6500000 3.2000000 161 3.177
48 12 McNamara, K. B., E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2014 Teleogryllus oceanicus Cricket 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Blind 1 YES 413 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.050 0.010 80.2000000 21.8000000 203 79.0500000 20.3000000 210 3.177
48 12 McNamara, K. B., E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2014 Teleogryllus oceanicus Cricket 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Blind 1 YES 788 Immunity B NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.106 0.005 NA NA NA NA NA 401 3.177
48 12 McNamara, K. B., E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2014 Teleogryllus oceanicus Cricket 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Blind 1 YES 335 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.108 0.012 0.5300000 0.1650000 173 0.5100000 0.2050000 162 3.177
48 12 McNamara, K. B., E. van Lieshout and L. W. Simmons 2014 Teleogryllus oceanicus Cricket 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 0 1 Blind 1 YES 406 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.098 0.010 0.5500000 0.2040000 202 0.5300000 0.2050000 204 3.177
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 47 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Unstressed 0.556 0.086 358.9000000 494.4000000 24 143.4000000 203.6000000 23 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 57 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Unstressed 0.470 0.070 294.7000000 313.6000000 28 158.0000000 259.1000000 29 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 53 Mating Duration M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 1.987 0.112 73.5000000 67.7000000 30 483.4000000 299.5000000 23 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 58 Mating Duration M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.551 0.070 181.8000000 198.5000000 29 323.3000000 298.6000000 29 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 53 Mating Frequency M YES Indirect Unstressed 1.982 0.112 2.1000000 2.2000000 30 22.2000000 15.0000000 23 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 58 Mating Frequency M YES Indirect Unstressed 0.929 0.075 4.2000000 4.1000000 29 15.0000000 15.7000000 29 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 30 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 1.852 0.183 183.8000000 80.6000000 15 409.5000000 147.0000000 15 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 30 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.061 0.126 346.1000000 255.8000000 15 366.3000000 378.7000000 15 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.614 0.193 0.4570000 0.3580000 10 0.6320000 0.1450000 10 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.931 0.205 0.5290000 0.2500000 10 0.7200000 0.1210000 10 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 20 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.319 0.186 0.5700000 0.0640000 10 0.6210000 0.2070000 10 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 24 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed -0.219 0.156 0.4530000 0.3920000 12 0.3610000 0.4180000 12 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 24 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.178 0.156 0.4450000 0.4240000 12 0.5140000 0.3180000 12 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 24 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.025 0.155 0.4210000 0.3560000 12 0.4300000 0.3340000 12 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 24 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.110 0.156 0.7970000 0.3520000 12 0.8330000 0.2730000 12 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 24 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.724 0.166 0.6940000 0.3350000 12 0.9010000 0.2000000 12 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 24 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed -0.389 0.159 0.8390000 0.2080000 12 0.7280000 0.3300000 12 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 30 Lifespan F NO Indirect Stressed 0.211 0.127 8.3000000 2.5500000 15 8.9000000 2.9700000 15 5.146
49 4 Michalczyk, L., A. L. Millard, O. Y. Martin, A. J. Lumley, B. C. Emerson and M. J. G. Gage 2011 Tribolium castaneum Beetle 1.050 6.00 105.00 High High High 1 1 Not Blind 20 NO 29 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.677 0.138 8.8000000 2.7200000 14 10.3000000 1.4400000 15 5.146
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 27 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.657 0.076 0.2000000 0.1120000 27 0.2540000 0.1140000 27 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 29 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.041 0.069 0.8890000 0.0740000 28 0.8920000 0.0700000 30 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 31 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.211 0.063 0.8760000 0.1030000 31 0.9010000 0.1290000 31 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 145 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Unstressed -0.062 0.014 2.9400000 1.8800000 149 3.1200000 3.6900000 143 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 145 Mating Duration M YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.918 0.015 11.7400000 2.3700000 149 14.0500000 2.6500000 143 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 122 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.153 0.016 0.0771000 0.1630000 122 0.1023000 0.1650000 121 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 27 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.314 0.073 0.1700000 0.0720000 27 0.2000000 0.1120000 27 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 29 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.613 0.073 0.8350000 0.0980000 28 0.8890000 0.0740000 28 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 31 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed -0.178 0.064 0.8970000 0.1290000 30 0.8760000 0.1030000 31 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 145 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Unstressed 0.159 0.014 3.5600000 5.2200000 142 2.9400000 1.8800000 149 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 145 Mating Duration M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.471 0.014 12.8800000 2.4600000 142 11.7400000 2.3700000 149 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 122 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.170 0.016 0.0543000 0.0961000 122 0.0771000 0.1630000 122 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 27 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.868 0.079 0.1700000 0.0720000 27 0.2540000 0.1140000 27 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 29 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.660 0.073 0.8350000 0.0980000 28 0.8920000 0.0700000 30 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 31 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.031 0.064 0.8970000 0.1290000 30 0.9010000 0.1290000 31 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 145 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Unstressed 0.097 0.014 3.5600000 5.2200000 142 3.1200000 3.6900000 143 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 145 Mating Duration M YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.456 0.014 12.8800000 2.4600000 142 14.0500000 2.6500000 143 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 122 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.355 0.017 0.0543000 0.0961000 122 0.1023000 0.1650000 121 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 1440 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 0.088 0.001 0.8700000 0.3415260 1440 0.9000000 0.3415260 1440 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 1440 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed -0.088 0.001 0.9000000 0.3415260 1440 0.8700000 0.3415260 1440 4.659
50 22 Nandy, B., P. Chakraborty, V. Gupta, S. Z. Ali and N. G. Prasad 2013 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Not Blind 50 NO 1440 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 0.000 0.001 0.9000000 0.3415260 1440 0.9000000 0.3415260 1440 4.659
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 27 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.089 0.072 0.2826667 0.0124900 27 0.2822222 0.0101274 27 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Blind 45 NO 27 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.981 0.081 0.2943519 0.0103532 27 0.2826667 0.0124900 27 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 27 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -1.183 0.085 0.2943519 0.0103532 27 0.2822222 0.0101274 27 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 30 Mating Frequency F YES Indirect Unstressed -0.090 0.065 6.7439524 3.1492291 30 7.0200794 2.9816484 30 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Blind 45 NO 30 Mating Frequency F YES Indirect Unstressed 0.284 0.066 7.6940238 3.4353720 30 6.7439524 3.1492291 30 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 30 Mating Frequency F YES Indirect Unstressed 0.205 0.065 7.6940238 3.4353720 30 7.0200794 2.9816484 30 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 29 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.185 0.067 50.3663793 7.6774347 29 51.5985906 5.1763110 29 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Blind 45 NO 29 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.890 0.075 56.1414116 4.7002918 28 50.3663793 7.6774347 29 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 29 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.905 0.075 56.1414116 4.7002918 28 51.5985906 5.1763110 29 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 28 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.771 0.076 47.9508929 7.0792749 28 52.6177249 4.5419731 27 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Blind 45 NO 28 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.168 0.067 42.6208333 8.3991535 30 47.9508929 7.0792749 28 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 28 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 1.439 0.087 42.6208333 8.3991535 30 52.6177249 4.5419731 27 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 29 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 1.315 0.081 33.4558333 4.1586802 30 38.8756979 3.9717452 29 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 27 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.189 0.074 33.2781463 4.5549330 28 33.4558333 4.1586802 30 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Blind 45 NO 29 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.041 0.067 33.2781463 4.5549330 28 38.8756979 3.9717452 29 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 32.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Blind 45 NO 27 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.669 0.078 56.2509143 5.8375189 25 57.2156463 4.2069037 28 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 29 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 1.295 0.083 60.1348639 5.1204446 28 56.2509143 5.8375189 25 4.612
51 22 Nandy, B., V. Gupta, N. Udaykumar, M. A. Samant, S. Sen and N. G. Prasad 2014 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 32.00 Medium Medium High 1 1 Blind 45 NO 27 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.612 0.073 60.1348639 5.1204446 28 57.2156463 4.2069037 28 4.612
52 27 Nelson, A. C., K. E. Colson, S. Harmon and W. K. Potts 2013 Mus musculus Mouse 15.000 0.50 30.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Blind 3 YES 20 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.831 0.201 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.407
52 27 Nelson, A. C., K. E. Colson, S. Harmon and W. K. Potts 2013 Mus musculus Mouse 15.000 0.50 30.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Blind 3 YES 20 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.831 0.201 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.407
52 27 Nelson, A. C., K. E. Colson, S. Harmon and W. K. Potts 2013 Mus musculus Mouse 15.000 0.50 30.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Blind 3 YES 20 Male Attractiveness M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.999 0.283 0.3850000 0.1090000 10 0.6210000 0.1170000 10 3.407
52 27 Nelson, A. C., K. E. Colson, S. Harmon and W. K. Potts 2013 Mus musculus Mouse 15.000 0.50 30.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Blind 2 YES 100 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.415 0.040 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.407
52 27 Nelson, A. C., K. E. Colson, S. Harmon and W. K. Potts 2013 Mus musculus Mouse 15.000 0.50 30.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Blind 2 YES 200 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.118 0.020 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.407
52 27 Nelson, A. C., K. E. Colson, S. Harmon and W. K. Potts 2013 Mus musculus Mouse 15.000 0.50 30.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Blind 2 YES 12 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Stressed 0.835 0.313 4.5300000 3.5000000 6 9.5400000 7.0100000 6 3.407
52 27 Nelson, A. C., K. E. Colson, S. Harmon and W. K. Potts 2013 Mus musculus Mouse 15.000 0.50 30.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Blind 2 YES 12 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.849 0.314 13.5000000 11.5700000 6 23.1800000 9.3500000 6 3.407
52 27 Nelson, A. C., K. E. Colson, S. Harmon and W. K. Potts 2013 Mus musculus Mouse 15.000 0.50 30.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Blind 2 YES 100 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed -0.304 0.041 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.407
53 23 Partridge, L. 1980 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 100.000 1.00 200.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 1 YES 41 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 0.773 0.103 48.9000000 2.9495762 18 51.1000000 2.6645825 23 NA
53 23 Partridge, L. 1980 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 100.000 1.00 200.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 1 YES 35 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 0.874 0.125 48.1000000 2.4083189 14 49.8000000 1.4832397 21 NA
53 23 Partridge, L. 1980 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 100.000 1.00 200.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 1 YES 60 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 0.707 0.069 49.4400000 1.4142136 32 50.4500000 1.4142136 28 NA
54 31 Pelabon, C., L. K. Larsen, G. H. Bolstad, A. Viken, I. A. Fleming and G. Rosenqvist 2014 Poecilia reticulata Guppy 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 9 YES 171 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.080 0.023 25.0000000 4.3826932 80 25.3600000 4.5789082 91 3.232
54 31 Pelabon, C., L. K. Larsen, G. H. Bolstad, A. Viken, I. A. Fleming and G. Rosenqvist 2014 Poecilia reticulata Guppy 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 9 YES 284 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.019 0.014 16.1800000 1.6099182 127 16.2100000 1.5982097 157 3.232
54 31 Pelabon, C., L. K. Larsen, G. H. Bolstad, A. Viken, I. A. Fleming and G. Rosenqvist 2014 Poecilia reticulata Guppy 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 9 YES 284 Male Attractiveness M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.120 0.014 1.5900000 0.8624562 127 1.7000000 0.9589258 157 3.232
54 31 Pelabon, C., L. K. Larsen, G. H. Bolstad, A. Viken, I. A. Fleming and G. Rosenqvist 2014 Poecilia reticulata Guppy 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 9 YES 284 Male Attractiveness M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.000 0.014 3.1300000 0.1437427 127 3.1300000 0.1278568 157 3.232
54 31 Pelabon, C., L. K. Larsen, G. H. Bolstad, A. Viken, I. A. Fleming and G. Rosenqvist 2014 Poecilia reticulata Guppy 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 9 YES 284 Male Attractiveness M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.193 0.014 0.1600000 0.8624562 127 0.3300000 0.8949974 157 3.232
54 31 Pelabon, C., L. K. Larsen, G. H. Bolstad, A. Viken, I. A. Fleming and G. Rosenqvist 2014 Poecilia reticulata Guppy 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 9 YES 284 Male Attractiveness M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.055 0.014 150.8900000 7.9058485 127 151.3400000 8.2900267 157 3.232
54 31 Pelabon, C., L. K. Larsen, G. H. Bolstad, A. Viken, I. A. Fleming and G. Rosenqvist 2014 Poecilia reticulata Guppy 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 9 YES 174 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.277 0.023 1.5900000 0.7244860 80 1.3820000 0.7659334 94 3.232
54 31 Pelabon, C., L. K. Larsen, G. H. Bolstad, A. Viken, I. A. Fleming and G. Rosenqvist 2014 Poecilia reticulata Guppy 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 9 YES 173 Offspring Viability F YES Direct Unstressed 0.621 0.024 6.9400000 0.5992662 80 7.3200000 0.6171936 93 3.232
54 31 Pelabon, C., L. K. Larsen, G. H. Bolstad, A. Viken, I. A. Fleming and G. Rosenqvist 2014 Poecilia reticulata Guppy 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 9 YES 145 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed 0.010 0.027 3.3200000 2.8195212 73 3.3500000 2.9698485 72 3.232
55 24 Pitnick, S., W. D. Brown and G. T. Miller 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 84 YES 228 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.973 0.020 0.8790000 0.0427083 114 0.9210000 0.0427083 114 NA
55 24 Pitnick, S., W. D. Brown and G. T. Miller 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 84 YES 234 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.763 0.018 0.8950000 0.0432666 117 0.9240000 0.0324500 117 NA
55 24 Pitnick, S., W. D. Brown and G. T. Miller 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 84 YES 230 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.363 0.018 129.1000000 80.4285397 115 99.0000000 84.7180618 115 NA
55 24 Pitnick, S., W. D. Brown and G. T. Miller 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 84 YES 236 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.246 0.017 122.0000000 86.9022439 118 101.2000000 81.4708537 118 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 61 YES 100 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 2.115 0.062 233.1300000 16.9400000 50 270.8300000 18.4100000 50 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 61 YES 100 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 1.346 0.048 211.6700000 19.8900000 50 237.1900000 17.6800000 50 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 61 YES 100 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 2.886 0.081 8.7307692 1.5410000 50 13.7564103 1.9037490 50 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 61 YES 100 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.596 0.041 7.7820513 2.2663679 50 9.0897436 2.0850585 50 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 61 YES 30 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.069 0.145 25.5723951 4.4651987 15 30.4600812 4.4023085 15 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 61 YES 30 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.484 0.163 27.4722598 3.3331765 15 32.9769959 3.8991876 15 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 81 YES 30 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.175 0.127 177.4228571 4.2492160 15 178.1600000 3.9836400 15 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 81 YES 30 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed -1.448 0.161 179.7885714 3.1869120 15 174.8857143 3.3860940 15 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 81 YES 178 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.015 0.022 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 81 YES 180 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.148 0.022 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 66 YES 140 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed -0.436 0.029 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 38 YES 315 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.022 0.014 0.5878581 0.3673826 112 0.5976808 0.4837226 203 NA
56 24 Pitnick, S., G. T. Miller, J. Reagan and B. Holland 2001 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 1 Blind 38 YES 344 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed 0.327 0.012 0.4503411 0.4170165 162 0.5968622 0.4754863 182 NA
57 32 Plesnar, A., M. Konior and J. Radwan 2011 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 1.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 2 NO 80 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Stressed 0.060 0.049 0.7700000 0.1700000 40 0.7800000 0.1600000 40 1.029
57 32 Plesnar, A., M. Konior and J. Radwan 2011 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 1.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 2 NO 80 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed -0.094 0.049 0.9500000 0.1100000 40 0.9400000 0.1000000 40 1.029
58 32 Plesnar-Bielak, A., A. M. Skrzynecka, Z. M. Prokop and J. Radwan 2012 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 20.000 1.00 40.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 14 YES 60 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 1.504 0.127 31.0909091 15.1950949 11 92.8571429 43.4161068 49 5.683
58 32 Plesnar-Bielak, A., A. M. Skrzynecka, Z. M. Prokop and J. Radwan 2012 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 20.000 1.00 40.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 14 YES 95 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 1.171 0.071 134.5000000 48.3000374 48 143.1428571 49.8409939 56 5.683
58 32 Plesnar-Bielak, A., A. M. Skrzynecka, Z. M. Prokop and J. Radwan 2012 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 20.000 1.00 40.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 14 YES 104 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.174 0.038 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.683
58 32 Plesnar-Bielak, A., A. M. Skrzynecka, Z. M. Prokop and J. Radwan 2012 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 20.000 1.00 40.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 14 YES 117 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 0.526 0.120 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.683
58 32 Plesnar-Bielak, A., A. M. Skrzynecka, Z. M. Prokop and J. Radwan 2012 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 20.000 1.00 40.00 Low Medium Medium 1 1 Not Blind 14 YES 11 Extinction Rate B NO Direct Stressed 1.510 0.740 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.683
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 32 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 1.331 0.148 741.0000000 154.4321210 18 948.0000000 147.7954668 14 2.747
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 32 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Stressed 1.339 0.149 37.0000000 7.6367532 18 47.4000000 7.4833148 14 2.747
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 36 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 1.242 0.128 602.0000000 143.8255193 18 752.0000000 84.8528137 18 2.747
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 36 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 1.240 0.128 30.1000000 7.2124892 18 37.6000000 4.2426407 18 2.747
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 32 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Stressed 1.465 0.154 765.0000000 156.9777054 18 978.0000000 118.9847049 14 2.747
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 32 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Stressed 1.428 0.153 38.3000000 8.0610173 18 48.9000000 5.9866518 14 2.747
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 32 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Stressed 1.017 0.137 70.4000000 9.7580736 18 79.1000000 5.9866518 14 2.747
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 36 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed 1.194 0.126 674.0000000 181.5850214 18 852.0000000 97.5807358 18 2.747
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 36 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed 1.223 0.127 33.7000000 8.9095454 18 42.6000000 4.6669048 18 2.747
59 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.500 2.00 3.00 Low Low Low 0 1 Not Blind 5 YES 36 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 1.050 0.122 73.0000000 7.6367532 18 79.8000000 4.6669048 18 2.747
60 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2015 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 0 Blind 3 YES 39 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.160 0.099 0.6091667 0.1700941 20 0.5425014 0.1557092 19 2.747
60 13 Power, D. J. and L. Holman 2015 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 2.000 3.00 4.00 Medium Low Medium 1 0 Blind 3 YES 39 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.396 0.100 39.4500000 15.0559483 20 41.7368421 12.7446813 19 2.747
61 25 Promislow, D. E. L., E. A. Smith and L. Pearse 1998 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 13 YES 150 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.100 0.026 -0.0125000 0.2600000 75 0.0168000 0.3190000 75 9.821
61 25 Promislow, D. E. L., E. A. Smith and L. Pearse 1998 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 13 YES 150 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.449 0.027 0.0950000 0.1750000 75 -0.0870000 0.5430000 75 9.821
61 25 Promislow, D. E. L., E. A. Smith and L. Pearse 1998 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 3.000 5.00 6.00 High Low Medium 1 1 Not Blind 17 YES 10182 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 0.006 0.001 NA NA NA NA NA NA 9.821
62 32 Radwan, J. 2004 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 2 YES 50 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Stressed 0.739 0.118 42.1100000 32.8700000 39 65.3900000 22.6900000 11 3.914
63 32 Radwan, J., J. Unrug, K. Sigorska and K. Gawronska 2004 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 11 YES 92 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.142 0.043 112.7000000 25.1624442 46 108.7000000 30.3170150 46 2.893
63 32 Radwan, J., J. Unrug, K. Sigorska and K. Gawronska 2004 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 11 YES 66 Reproductive Success M NO Direct Unstressed -0.123 0.059 0.6170000 0.7180703 33 0.5430000 0.4423313 33 2.893
63 32 Radwan, J., J. Unrug, K. Sigorska and K. Gawronska 2004 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 11 YES 106 Offspring Viability B NO Direct Unstressed 0.106 0.037 0.7030000 0.1965630 53 0.7610000 0.7425712 53 2.893
63 32 Radwan, J., J. Unrug, K. Sigorska and K. Gawronska 2004 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 11 YES 90 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.085 0.044 25.3700000 21.1979244 45 23.7400000 16.4350996 45 2.893
64 34 Rundle, H. D., S. F. Chenoweth and M. W. Blows 2006 Drosophila serrata Fly 55.000 1.00 110.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 16 YES 552 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Stressed -0.067 0.007 30.4100000 40.5200000 276 27.6800000 40.5200000 276 4.292
64 34 Rundle, H. D., S. F. Chenoweth and M. W. Blows 2006 Drosophila serrata Fly 55.000 1.00 110.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 16 YES 552 Reproductive Success B NO Direct Unstressed -0.028 0.007 19.5700000 23.5600000 276 18.8300000 28.2700000 276 4.292
66 37 Simmons, L. W. and F. Garcia-Gonzalez 2008 Onthophagus taurus Beetle 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 20 YES 88 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.918 0.049 2.1300000 0.5969925 44 2.6000000 0.3979950 44 4.737
66 37 Simmons, L. W. and F. Garcia-Gonzalez 2008 Onthophagus taurus Beetle 10.000 1.00 20.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 20 YES 88 Body Condition M NO Indirect Unstressed -0.727 0.048 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.737
67 32 Tilszer, M., K. Antoszczyk, N. Sa_ek, E. Zaj__c and J. Radwan 2006 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 37 YES 120 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.205 0.033 86.7000000 40.2790268 60 95.5000000 44.9266068 60 4.292
67 32 Tilszer, M., K. Antoszczyk, N. Sa_ek, E. Zaj__c and J. Radwan 2006 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 37 YES 120 Early Fecundity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.259 0.033 90.7000000 52.6725735 60 102.4000000 35.6314468 60 4.292
67 32 Tilszer, M., K. Antoszczyk, N. Sa_ek, E. Zaj__c and J. Radwan 2006 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 37 YES 120 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 1.768 0.046 0.4310000 0.1006976 60 0.6170000 0.1084435 60 4.292
67 32 Tilszer, M., K. Antoszczyk, N. Sa_ek, E. Zaj__c and J. Radwan 2006 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 37 YES 120 Mating Success M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.282 0.033 0.4760000 0.5654556 60 0.6340000 0.5499636 60 4.292
67 32 Tilszer, M., K. Antoszczyk, N. Sa_ek, E. Zaj__c and J. Radwan 2006 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 37 YES 120 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.022 0.033 284.3000000 105.3451470 60 286.8000000 120.8370804 60 4.292
67 32 Tilszer, M., K. Antoszczyk, N. Sa_ek, E. Zaj__c and J. Radwan 2006 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 37 YES 120 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.123 0.033 278.0000000 61.1931369 60 284.4000000 39.5044301 60 4.292
67 32 Tilszer, M., K. Antoszczyk, N. Sa_ek, E. Zaj__c and J. Radwan 2006 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 37 YES 42 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.287 0.093 97.8000000 0.4582576 21 97.5000000 1.3747727 21 4.292
67 32 Tilszer, M., K. Antoszczyk, N. Sa_ek, E. Zaj__c and J. Radwan 2006 Rhizoglyphus robini Mite 5.000 1.00 10.00 Low Medium Low 1 1 Not Blind 37 YES 42 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.199 0.092 97.4000000 0.9165151 21 96.6000000 5.4990908 21 4.292
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 99 Behavioural Plasticity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.018 0.040 285.4200000 196.1144075 50 282.2448980 155.8838417 49 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 98 Behavioural Plasticity F YES Ambiguous Unstressed -0.132 0.040 393.4166667 153.0849901 48 371.1800000 179.6165633 50 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 99 Body Size M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.155 0.040 3.4253300 0.5533225 50 3.5132898 0.4702925 49 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 98 Body Size F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.259 0.041 4.4623021 0.6760828 48 4.6295060 0.6208700 50 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 99 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed 0.116 0.040 0.2007420 0.0585906 50 0.2075663 0.0648678 49 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 98 Ejaculate Quality and Production M NO Indirect Unstressed -0.022 0.040 0.1668542 0.0523804 48 0.1663250 0.0433648 50 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 99 Mating Latency M YES Indirect Unstressed 0.084 0.040 49.2000000 73.2039365 50 44.1836735 40.4874844 49 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 98 Mating Latency F YES Indirect Unstressed -0.105 0.040 69.6458333 86.1992964 48 61.4200000 68.2764758 50 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 96 Immunity M NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.373 0.042 12.7920000 0.3350000 49 12.6780000 0.2580000 47 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 94 Immunity F NO Ambiguous Unstressed -0.564 0.044 12.9760000 0.2400000 47 12.8530000 0.1880000 47 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 99 Mating Duration M YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.029 0.040 565.1000000 277.6167708 50 572.7551020 244.4586307 49 4.612
68 12 van Lieshout, E., K. B. McNamara and L. W. Simmons 2014 Callosobruchus maculatus Beetle 1.000 2.00 120.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 11 NO 98 Mating Duration F YES Ambiguous Unstressed 0.354 0.041 616.3958333 261.4579206 48 530.8400000 217.4206268 50 4.612
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 31 NO 180 Mating Frequency F YES Indirect Unstressed -0.236 0.011 0.3000000 0.5366563 180 0.6700000 2.1466253 180 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 900 Mating Frequency M YES Indirect Unstressed 0.161 0.002 0.0390000 0.0900000 900 0.0650000 0.2100000 900 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 31 NO 180 Mating Frequency F YES Indirect Unstressed -0.178 0.011 0.2300000 0.1341641 180 0.3000000 0.5366563 180 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 900 Mating Frequency M YES Indirect Unstressed -0.077 0.002 0.0530000 0.2400000 900 0.2300000 0.1341641 180 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 31 NO 180 Mating Frequency F YES Indirect Unstressed -0.288 0.011 0.2300000 0.1341641 180 0.6700000 2.1466253 180 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 900 Mating Frequency M YES Indirect Unstressed 0.053 0.002 0.0530000 0.2400000 900 0.0650000 0.2100000 900 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.009 0.126 91.0000000 68.9050989 15 91.5000000 35.8880723 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.235 0.127 83.0000000 54.5498700 15 68.0000000 68.9050989 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.259 0.127 98.0000000 54.5498700 15 81.0000000 71.7761447 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.094 0.126 90.5000000 49.5255398 15 86.0000000 43.0656868 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.119 0.126 76.0000000 85.4136122 15 84.5000000 48.8077784 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.397 0.129 96.5000000 68.9050989 15 73.5000000 40.1946410 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.057 0.126 88.0000000 22.9683663 15 91.0000000 68.9050989 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.201 0.127 92.0000000 28.7104579 15 83.0000000 54.5498700 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.132 0.127 88.0000000 89.0024194 15 98.0000000 54.5498700 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.006 0.126 91.0000000 114.8418315 15 90.5000000 49.5255398 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.171 0.127 89.0000000 60.2919615 15 76.0000000 85.4136122 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.118 0.126 88.5000000 63.1630073 15 96.5000000 68.9050989 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed 0.113 0.126 88.0000000 22.9683663 15 91.5000000 35.8880723 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.442 0.129 92.0000000 28.7104579 15 68.0000000 68.9050989 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.084 0.126 88.0000000 89.0024194 15 81.0000000 71.7761447 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.056 0.126 91.0000000 114.8418315 15 86.0000000 43.0656868 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.080 0.126 89.0000000 60.2919615 15 84.5000000 48.8077784 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Reproductive Success F NO Direct Unstressed -0.276 0.127 88.5000000 63.1630073 15 73.5000000 40.1946410 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.174 0.007 25.5400000 9.6994845 300 27.2600000 10.0458947 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.091 0.007 24.0500000 10.3923049 300 25.0300000 11.0851252 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.251 0.007 24.9300000 10.3923049 300 27.5900000 10.7387150 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 26 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.390 0.007 42.3600000 16.8008928 300 36.3500000 13.8564065 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 26 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.485 0.007 33.3700000 18.5329436 300 43.3200000 22.3434554 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 26 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.227 0.007 38.4700000 23.2094808 300 43.8100000 23.7290961 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed 0.164 0.127 0.8200000 0.4880778 15 0.9000000 0.4593673 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.548 0.131 0.9100000 0.2583941 15 0.7200000 0.4019464 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.298 0.128 0.8800000 0.2583941 15 0.7600000 0.4880778 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 300 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed 0.007 0.007 22.2400000 10.0458947 300 22.3100000 10.2190998 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 300 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed -0.251 0.007 23.9000000 11.9511506 300 21.1700000 9.6994845 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 300 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed -0.070 0.007 24.2800000 10.7387150 300 23.5500000 10.2190998 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.124 0.007 24.2700000 10.2190998 300 25.5400000 9.6994845 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.140 0.007 22.7300000 8.8334591 300 24.0500000 10.3923049 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.095 0.007 24.0100000 9.1798693 300 24.9300000 10.3923049 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 26 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.210 0.007 38.2400000 22.3434554 300 42.3600000 16.8008928 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 26 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.457 0.007 41.2900000 16.1080725 300 33.3700000 18.5329436 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 26 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.202 0.007 42.9300000 20.6114046 300 38.4700000 23.2094808 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.069 0.126 0.8600000 0.6316301 15 0.8200000 0.4880778 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed 0.040 0.126 0.9000000 0.2296837 15 0.9100000 0.2583941 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.058 0.126 0.9200000 0.9187347 15 0.8800000 0.2583941 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 300 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed 0.061 0.007 21.6300000 10.0458947 300 22.2400000 10.0458947 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 300 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed 0.159 0.007 22.1700000 9.6994845 300 23.9000000 11.9511506 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 1.00 100.00 Low High Medium 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 300 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed 0.141 0.007 22.7800000 10.5655099 300 24.2800000 10.7387150 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.292 0.007 24.2700000 10.2190998 300 27.2600000 10.0458947 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.232 0.007 22.7300000 8.8334591 300 25.0300000 11.0851252 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.359 0.007 24.0100000 9.1798693 300 27.5900000 10.7387150 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 26 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed -0.100 0.007 38.2400000 22.3434554 300 36.3500000 13.8564065 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 26 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.104 0.007 41.2900000 16.1080725 300 43.3200000 22.3434554 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 26 NO 300 Lifespan F NO Indirect Unstressed 0.041 0.007 42.9300000 20.6114046 300 43.8100000 23.7290961 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed 0.071 0.126 0.8600000 0.6316301 15 0.9000000 0.4593673 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.537 0.131 0.9000000 0.2296837 15 0.7200000 0.4019464 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 22 NO 15 Offspring Viability F NO Direct Unstressed -0.211 0.127 0.9200000 0.9187347 15 0.7600000 0.4880778 15 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 300 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed 0.067 0.007 21.6300000 10.0458947 300 22.3100000 10.2190998 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 300 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed -0.103 0.007 22.1700000 9.6994845 300 21.1700000 9.6994845 300 3.719
69 26 Wigby, S. and T. Chapman 2004 Drosophila melanogaster Fly 1.000 3.00 100.00 Medium High High 1 1 Not Blind 33 NO 300 Offspring Viability M NO Direct Unstressed 0.074 0.007 22.7800000 10.5655099 300 23.5500000 10.2190998 300 3.719

Explanation of Dataframe:

Study ID: An ID given to the published paper the effect size is sourced from

Group ID: An ID given to the research group that may have published several papers on the same species usuing the same or very similar experimental setup

Species and Species ID: Same thing

SS Strength, Ratios and SS Density’s (Column 7-9): Various ratios of the number of males to females and the total number of individuals kept together in an experiment

Ratio Category: A three level category for the ratio of males to females (high, medium, low).

Density Category: A three level category for the density of males to females (high, medium, low).

SSS.Categorical: A three level category for the density & the ratio of males to females (high medium, low).

Post cop and Pre cop: Whether a study allowed Pre/Post-copulatory sexual selection (1) or not (0)

Blind: Whether the study was blind or not

Generations The number of generations run before fitness outcomes were measured

Enforced Monogamy: Whether the study had the low sexual selection treatment as enforced monogamy (YES) or not (NO). Not all studies compared enforced monogamy and SS+ treatments. Some used FB vs MB, where FB is the SS (low intensity).

Sex: Whether the fitness outcome was measured for females (F), males (M) or both (B). Studies that reported ‘both’ would pool results from males and females.

Ambiguous: Is the fitness outcome ambiguous (YES) or not ambigous (NO). Ambiguous outcomes may be those that may not necessarily be directional, that is to say they may be a life history trait.

Outcome Class: Grouped as Direct, Indirect or Ambiguous.

Environment: In the methods of the papers included in this study it was usually stated whether additional modifications to the experimental lines were made. Briefly, this was usually a modification that made conditions more stressful such as using a novel food source or elevated mutation load, the effect sizes from these experimental lines are labelled as ‘Stressed’. If it was clearly stated that there was no such modification it is labelled ‘Unstressed’. However, sometimes the paper was ambiguous in what lines had added stress or the results from stressed and unstressed lines were pooled together, in this case we label it as ‘Not Stated’.

g: Hedge’s g calculated using the compute.es package

var.g: The within study variance associated with the effect size, g

mean/sd/n.low/high: The means, standard deviation and sample size for the low or high sexual selection treatments, used to calculate lnCVR (meta-analysis of variance). Rows without these values had hedges g’ derived from summary statistics (F, z, chi-square etc.)

JIF: Journal Impact factor at year of publication. Several impact factors were unable to be determined/found and are NA.


Factor and level data

A lot of the covariates are categorical, so here we assign them as factors and relevel them.

prelim.data$Study.ID <- prelim.data$Study.ID %>% factor
prelim.data$Taxon <- prelim.data$Taxon %>% factor
prelim.data$Group.ID <- prelim.data$Group.ID %>% factor 
prelim.data$Authors <- prelim.data$Authors %>% factor
prelim.data$Environment <- prelim.data$Environment %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="Unstressed")
prelim.data$Sex <- prelim.data$Sex %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="B")
prelim.data$Ambiguous <- prelim.data$Ambiguous %>% factor
prelim.data$Species <- prelim.data$Species %>% factor
#Outcome.Class.2 is using the categories that were decided by survey. I am keeping both just to check them against each other (how much of a difference it makes)
prelim.data$Outcome.Class <- prelim.data$Outcome.Class %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="Indirect")
prelim.data$Enforced.Monogamy <- prelim.data$Enforced.Monogamy %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="NO")
prelim.data$Pre.cop <- prelim.data$Pre.cop %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="0")
prelim.data$Post.cop <- prelim.data$Post.cop %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="0")
prelim.data$Ratio.Category <- prelim.data$Ratio.Category %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="Low")
prelim.data$Density.Category <- prelim.data$Density.Category %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="Low")
prelim.data$SSS.Categorical <- prelim.data$SSS.Categorical %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="Low")
prelim.data$Blinding <- prelim.data$Blinding %>% factor

The Effect Size Dataset

The number of effect sizes, publications, blind experiments, effect sizes in stressed conditions, male, female and both measures and different species used, with the number of effect sizes per taxon also reported.

n.blind.ones <- (sum(prelim.data$Blind == "Blind"))
n.stressed.ones <- 
prelim.data %>% summarise(Effect_sizes = n(), 
                       Publications = prelim.data$Study.ID %>% unique %>% length,
                       Blind_experiments = n.blind.ones,
                       Effect_sizes_.Stressedq = (sum(prelim.data$Environment == "Stressed")),
                       Effect_sizes_.Unstressedq = (sum(prelim.data$Environment == "Unstressed")),         
                       Effect_sizes_.Maleq = (sum(prelim.data$Sex == "M")),
                       Effect_sizes_.Femaleq = (sum(prelim.data$Sex == "F")),
                       Effect_sizes_.Both_sexesq = (sum(prelim.data$Sex == "B")),
                       Different_species =  prelim.data$Species %>% unique %>% length,
                       Effect_sizes_.Beetleq = sum(Taxon == "Beetle"),
                       Effect_sizes_.Flyq = sum(Taxon == "Fly"),
                       Effect_sizes_.Mouseq = sum(Taxon == "Mouse"),
                       Effect_sizes_.Nematodeq = sum(Taxon == "Nematode"),
                       Effect_sizes_.Miteq = sum(Taxon == "Mite"),
                       Effect_sizes_.Cricketq = sum(Taxon == "Cricket"),
                       Effect_sizes_.Guppyq = sum(Taxon == "Guppy")) %>% melt %>%
  mutate(variable = gsub("_", " ", variable),
         variable = gsub("[.]", "(", variable),
         variable = gsub("q", ")", variable)) %>% 
  rename_("n" = "value", " " = "variable") %>% pander(split.cell = 40, split.table = Inf)
No id variables; using all as measure variables

---------------------------------
                              n  
--------------------------- -----
       Effect sizes          459 

       Publications          65  

     Blind experiments       54  

  Effect sizes (Stressed)    94  

 Effect sizes (Unstressed)   335 

    Effect sizes (Male)      189 

   Effect sizes (Female)     219 

 Effect sizes (Both sexes)   51  

     Different species       15  

   Effect sizes (Beetle)     116 

    Effect sizes (Fly)       254 

   Effect sizes (Mouse)      40  

  Effect sizes (Nematode)     9  

    Effect sizes (Mite)      25  

  Effect sizes (Cricket)      6  

   Effect sizes (Guppy)       9  
---------------------------------

Forest plot using ggplot

Here we show the residual effect sizes for each outcome measured. The following forest plot is based on the residual effect sizes. The model is an intercept only model with standard random effects structure.

Although I am not sure whether having the raw values would be better. In addition whether it is worth it to add in summary polygons (effect sizes) for a grouped outcome

Using ggplot the forest plot is grouped according to environment and sex, with multiple effect sizes on one row for a given study

#Create standard random effectrs model
forest.model <- rma(g, var.g, mods = ~ 1, method = "REML", data = prelim.data)
#Obtain residuals
resstandards <- (rstandard.rma.uni(forest.model, type="response"))
#Create new df with residuals replacing raw
df.forest.model <- prelim.data
df.forest.model$g <- resstandards$resid
df.forest.model$sei <- resstandards$se
#Create new factor to order factors in a way where Ambig, Indirect and Direct are Grouped
df.forest.model$Outcome_f = factor(df.forest.model$Outcome, levels = c('Behavioural Plasticity', 'Body Size', 'Development Rate', 'Early Fecundity', 'Immunity', 'Mating Duration', 'Pesticide Resistance', 'Mutant Frequency', 'Body Condition', 'Fitness Senescence', 'Lifespan', 'Male Attractiveness', 'Mating Frequency', 'Mating Latency', 'Mating Success', 'Strength', 'Ejaculate Quality and Production', 'Extinction Rate', 'Offspring Viability', 'Reproductive Success'))
#define upper and lower bounds
df.forest.model$lowerci <- df.forest.model$g - 1.96*((df.forest.model$sei))
df.forest.model$upperci <- df.forest.model$g + 1.96*((df.forest.model$sei))
#Get author and year in one
df.forest.model$AuthorYear = paste(df.forest.model$Authors, df.forest.model$Year, sep=" ")
#Generate a plot
p.meta <- ggplot(df.forest.model, aes(y=reorder(AuthorYear, -g), x=g, xmin=lowerci, xmax=upperci, shape=Sex, color = Outcome.Class)) +
 #Add data points and color them black
geom_point(size=2)+
geom_errorbarh(data=df.forest.model, aes(xmin= lowerci, xmax = upperci) ,height=.1)+
  #Specify the limits of the x-axis and relabel it to something more meaningful
  scale_x_continuous(limits=c(-5,5), name='Standardized Mean Difference (g)')+
  #Give y-axis a meaningful label
  ylab('Reference')+
  #Add a vertical dashed line indicating an effect size of zero, for reference
  geom_vline(xintercept=0, color='black', linetype='dashed')+
  #Create sub-plots (i.e., facets) based on levels of setting
  #And allow them to have their own unique axes (so authors don't redundantly repeat)
  facet_grid(Outcome_f~., scales= 'free', space='free')+
  theme(strip.text.y = element_text(angle = 0))
p.meta


Effect size of subgroups

The following documents how i could run individual models for each outcome or outcome.class of interest and then plot them. This may be good to add to the above forest plot (in the form of a polygon; how many studies report their estimates) but at the same time, it just adds results from different subsetted models rather than one combined one (as we use when investigating sex and environment)

There is not really enough direct outcomes to analyse by itself so hence we combine with indirect later

#Ambiguous outcomes
model.Ambiguous <- rma(g, var.g, mods = ~ 1, method = "REML", subset = (Outcome.Class == "Ambiguous"), intercept = T ,data = prelim.data)
summary(model.Ambiguous)

Random-Effects Model (k = 96; tau^2 estimator: REML)

   logLik   deviance        AIC        BIC       AICc  
-101.5560   203.1120   207.1120   212.2198   207.2425  

tau^2 (estimated amount of total heterogeneity): 0.3901 (SE = 0.0637)
tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value):      0.6246
I^2 (total heterogeneity / total variability):   95.04%
H^2 (total variability / sampling variability):  20.18

Test for Heterogeneity: 
Q(df = 95) = 1308.3434, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

estimate      se    zval    pval    ci.lb   ci.ub   
  0.0846  0.0679  1.2465  0.2126  -0.0484  0.2176   

---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 
#Indirect outcomes
model.Indirect <- rma(g, var.g, mods = ~ 1, method = "REML", subset = (Outcome.Class == "Indirect"), intercept = T ,data = prelim.data)
summary(model.Indirect)

Random-Effects Model (k = 147; tau^2 estimator: REML)

   logLik   deviance        AIC        BIC       AICc  
-151.2813   302.5625   306.5625   312.5297   306.6464  

tau^2 (estimated amount of total heterogeneity): 0.3684 (SE = 0.0486)
tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value):      0.6069
I^2 (total heterogeneity / total variability):   96.61%
H^2 (total variability / sampling variability):  29.48

Test for Heterogeneity: 
Q(df = 146) = 3576.9481, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

estimate      se    zval    pval   ci.lb   ci.ub     
  0.2490  0.0533  4.6680  <.0001  0.1445  0.3536  ***

---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 
#Direct outcomes
model.Direct <- rma(g, var.g, mods = ~ 1, method = "REML", subset = (Outcome.Class == "Direct"), data = prelim.data)
summary(model.Direct)

Random-Effects Model (k = 216; tau^2 estimator: REML)

   logLik   deviance        AIC        BIC       AICc  
-197.9389   395.8779   399.8779   406.6192   399.9345  

tau^2 (estimated amount of total heterogeneity): 0.2463 (SE = 0.0303)
tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value):      0.4963
I^2 (total heterogeneity / total variability):   92.61%
H^2 (total variability / sampling variability):  13.53

Test for Heterogeneity: 
Q(df = 215) = 1273.1096, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

estimate      se    zval    pval   ci.lb   ci.ub     
  0.1279  0.0385  3.3235  0.0009  0.0525  0.2033  ***

---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 

Now let’s combine into a data frame and plot. The following plot could then be added to the large forest plot as summary polygons or summary points with error bars.

#Data frame
Outcome.category <- c('Ambiguous', 'Indirect', 'Direct')
Estimate <- c(model.Ambiguous$b, model.Indirect$b, model.Direct$b)
l.ci <- c(model.Ambiguous$ci.lb, model.Indirect$ci.lb, model.Direct$ci.lb)
u.ci <- c(model.Ambiguous$ci.ub, model.Indirect$ci.ub, model.Direct$ci.ub)
data.1 <- data.frame(Outcome.category, Estimate, l.ci, u.ci)
#plot
data.1 %>% ggplot(aes(x = Estimate, y= Outcome.category)) + 
  geom_point() +
  geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = 2, colour = "grey70") + 
  geom_errorbarh(aes(xmin = l.ci, xmax = u.ci), height = 0, size=1) +
  ylab("Outcome Category")+
  xlab("Effect Size")+
  xlim(-.2, .5)+
  ggtitle('Meta-Analysis Results')

From the previous forest plot and models we see that overall sexual selection is beneficial towards population fitness. Although this is heavily modulated by the individual outcome and the outcome class. We explore heterogeneity in more depth later in this document.


Model predictions

Does the effect of sexual selection differ between species?

First run the model using a restricted dataset where we remove effect sizes with Ambiguous outcomes or environments that were not stated whether they were stressed or unstressed. In this model we use Sex, Environment, Taxon and the interaction between sex and environment as we hypothesise that the a stressful enviornment may be of greater importance to the female sex due to ‘female demographic dominance’, which essentially states that female fitness is more important to the overall population demographics and that most benefits or conversely costs will accrue to female fitness components.

restricted.data <- prelim.data %>% 
  filter(Outcome.Class != "Ambiguous" & Environment != "Not Stated") %>% 
  mutate(Sex = as.character(Sex), Environment = as.character(Environment), Outcome.Class.2 = as.character(Outcome.Class), Enforced.Monogamy = as.character(Enforced.Monogamy))
#RWe need to make sure the factors are leveled in the same order as we write our prediction function (below)
restricted.data$Environment <- restricted.data$Environment %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="Unstressed")
restricted.data$Sex <- restricted.data$Sex %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="M")
restricted.data$Outcome.Class <- restricted.data$Outcome.Class %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="Indirect")
#run model again with restricted data 
model.complete <- rma.mv(g, var.g, 
                         mods = ~ 1 + Sex + Environment + Taxon + Sex:Environment, 
                         random = ~ 1 | Study.ID/Outcome, 
                         method = "REML", 
                         data = restricted.data)
Redundant predictors dropped from the model.
#Note that the data is subsetted
summary(model.complete) 

Multivariate Meta-Analysis Model (k = 336; method: REML)

    logLik    Deviance         AIC         BIC        AICc  
-1201.7714   2403.5429   2429.5429   2478.7326   2430.7133  

Variance Components: 

            estim    sqrt  nlvls  fixed            factor
sigma^2.1  0.0635  0.2519     56     no          Study.ID
sigma^2.2  0.1528  0.3909    101     no  Study.ID/Outcome

Test for Residual Heterogeneity: 
QE(df = 325) = 4443.5982, p-val < .0001

Test of Moderators (coefficient(s) 2:11): 
QM(df = 10) = 52.8349, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

                          estimate      se     zval    pval    ci.lb    ci.ub     
intrcpt                     0.3590  0.1151   3.1186  0.0018   0.1334   0.5846   **
SexB                       -0.0601  0.1136  -0.5297  0.5964  -0.2827   0.1624     
SexF                        0.0417  0.0341   1.2230  0.2213  -0.0251   0.1085     
EnvironmentStressed        -0.1151  0.0430  -2.6777  0.0074  -0.1993  -0.0308   **
TaxonCricket                0.2090  0.4914   0.4253  0.6706  -0.7542   1.1722     
TaxonFly                   -0.2536  0.1375  -1.8453  0.0650  -0.5230   0.0158    .
TaxonGuppy                 -0.3292  0.3629  -0.9072  0.3643  -1.0406   0.3821     
TaxonMite                  -0.1114  0.2022  -0.5510  0.5817  -0.5076   0.2849     
TaxonMouse                 -0.3719  0.2087  -1.7815  0.0748  -0.7810   0.0372    .
SexB:EnvironmentStressed    0.1332  0.0920   1.4475  0.1478  -0.0472   0.3135     
SexF:EnvironmentStressed    0.2528  0.0540   4.6806  <.0001   0.1469   0.3587  ***

---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 

The result is a model with estimates for various taxa, species, sexes and environments. To make sense of these estimates we should obtain average predictions for each moderator variable class of interest. We can do that by using a modified version version of a function used by Holman 2017. Here it alows us to cluster predictions for the different moderators of interest: Sex, environment, taxon etc. This is done by obtaining predictions using the base predict() function for the rma.mv() objects that have been previously created

# function that makes predict.rma work like a normal predict() function, instead of the idiosyncratic way that it works by default.
get.predictions.complete <- function(newdata){
  B<-0; F<-0; Stressed<-0; Cricket<-0; Fly<-0; Guppy<-0; Mite<-0; Mouse<-0; interaction1<-0; interaction2<-0; interaction3<-0
  if(newdata[1] == "B") B<-1 
  if(newdata[1] == "F") F<-1 
  if(newdata[2] == "Stressed") Unstressed<-1
  if(newdata[3] == "Cricket") Cricket<-1
  if(newdata[3] == "Fly") Fly<-1
  if(newdata[3] == "Guppy") Guppy<-1
  if(newdata[3] == "Mite") Mite<-1
  if(newdata[3] == "Mouse") Mouse<-1
  if(newdata[1] == "B" & newdata[2] == "Stressed") interaction1<-1
  if(newdata[1] == "F" & newdata[2] == "Stressed") interaction2<-1
  predict(model.complete, newmods=c(B, F, Stressed, Cricket, Fly, Guppy, Mite, Mouse, interaction1=interaction1, interaction2=interaction2))
}
# Get the predictions for each combination of moderators
predictions.complete <- as.data.frame(expand.grid(Sex = c("M", "B", "F"),
                           Environment = c("Unstressed", "Stressed"),
                           Taxon = c("Cricket", "Fly", "Guppy", "Mite", "Mouse")))
predictions.complete <- cbind(predictions.complete, do.call("rbind", apply(predictions.complete, 1, get.predictions.complete))) %>%
  select(Sex, Environment, Taxon, pred, se, ci.lb, ci.ub) 
for(i in 4:7) predictions.complete[,i] <- unlist(predictions.complete[,i])

Note that to get vertical position dodge to use in the ggplot meta-analysis we need to utilise a vertical position dodge. We can obtain this formula from the following github page by Jared Lander: https://github.com/jaredlander/coefplot/blob/master/R/position.r

Third, plot the model predictions for effect size (Hedges’ g) for male, female and both sexes under both stressed and unstressed condition and faceted for each taxon.

I would liker to know how to join a table with mean, and CI values to the forest plots I am generating.

pd <- position_dodgev(height = .7)
predictions.complete %>% ggplot(aes(x = pred, y= Environment, colour = Sex)) + 
  geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = 2, colour = "grey70") + 
  geom_errorbarh(aes(xmin = predictions.complete$ci.lb, xmax = predictions.complete$ci.ub), height = 0, position = pd) +
  geom_point(position = pd, size=2) + 
  facet_grid(Taxon ~.)+
  ylab("Environment")+
  xlab("Model Prediction (Hedges g)")+
  xlim(-2, 2)+
  ggtitle('Effects of Sex, Stress and Outcome Class \non Population Fitness for Each Taxon')

This model indicates quite a bit of heterogeneity between taxon. More so that that confidence limits increase, rather than radically changing direction of effect. However we can se from this that under stressed environments, females twnd to


Does sexual selection benefit populations in stressed environments more than unstressed environments? AND Do the benefits of sexual selection accrue more for female fitness components?

Here we run a three level model where the outcome is nested within a study (Study.ID). Other potential random effects include Species and Group.ID. However the estimate (variance from random effect) of these two other potential random effects tended towards zero and were dropped from the model. Additionally the model could be run with just Study.ID, but from our exploration of heterogeneity (below) we see that there is sufficient correlation (but not ICC = 1) between outcomes to include it as a random effect within the model.

#run model without taxon: 3 level model with outcomes within a study
model.complete2 <- rma.mv(g, var.g, 
                          mods = ~ 1 + Sex + Environment + Sex:Environment, 
                          random = ~ 1 | Study.ID/Outcome, 
                          method = "REML", 
                          data = restricted.data)
summary(model.complete2)

Multivariate Meta-Analysis Model (k = 336; method: REML)

    logLik    Deviance         AIC         BIC        AICc  
-1207.9250   2415.8499   2431.8499   2462.2427   2432.2985  

Variance Components: 

            estim    sqrt  nlvls  fixed            factor
sigma^2.1  0.0567  0.2381     56     no          Study.ID
sigma^2.2  0.1592  0.3990    101     no  Study.ID/Outcome

Test for Residual Heterogeneity: 
QE(df = 330) = 4576.5205, p-val < .0001

Test of Moderators (coefficient(s) 2:6): 
QM(df = 5) = 47.2343, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

                          estimate      se     zval    pval    ci.lb    ci.ub     
intrcpt                     0.1763  0.0605   2.9131  0.0036   0.0577   0.2949   **
SexB                       -0.0623  0.1132  -0.5503  0.5821  -0.2840   0.1595     
SexF                        0.0395  0.0341   1.1595  0.2463  -0.0273   0.1062     
EnvironmentStressed        -0.1195  0.0429  -2.7845  0.0054  -0.2036  -0.0354   **
SexB:EnvironmentStressed    0.1457  0.0919   1.5860  0.1127  -0.0344   0.3258     
SexF:EnvironmentStressed    0.2566  0.0540   4.7530  <.0001   0.1508   0.3624  ***

---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 
#Generate predictions without taxon utilising the previously described function
get.predictions.complete2 <- function(newdata){
  B<-0; F<-0; Stressed<-0; interaction1<-0; interaction2<-0; interaction3<-0
  if(newdata[1] == "B") B<-1 
  if(newdata[1] == "F") F<-1 
  if(newdata[2] == "Stressed") Unstressed<-1
  if(newdata[1] == "B" & newdata[2] == "Stressed") interaction1<-1
  if(newdata[1] == "F" & newdata[2] == "Stressed") interaction2<-1
  predict(model.complete2, newmods=c(B, F, Stressed, interaction1=interaction1, interaction2=interaction2))
}
# Get the predictions for each combination of moderators
predictions.complete2 <- as.data.frame(expand.grid(Sex = c("M", "B", "F"),
                           Environment = c("Unstressed", "Stressed")))
predictions.complete2 <- cbind(predictions.complete2, do.call("rbind", apply(predictions.complete2, 1, get.predictions.complete2))) %>%
  select(Sex, Environment, pred, se, ci.lb, ci.ub) 
for(i in 3:6) predictions.complete2[,i] <- unlist(predictions.complete2[,i])
#And plot the results
pd <- position_dodgev(height = .5)
predictions.complete2 %>% ggplot(aes(x = pred, y= Environment, colour = Sex)) + 
  geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = 2, colour = "grey70") + 
  geom_errorbarh(aes(xmin = predictions.complete2$ci.lb, xmax = predictions.complete2$ci.ub), height = 0, position = pd) +
  geom_point(position = pd) + 
  ylab("Environment")+
  xlab("Effect Size (Hedges g)")+
  xlim(-.75, .75)+
  ggtitle('Effects of Sex, Stress \non Population Fitness')

We see that female fitness in stressed environments is greater than the other measurements. For outcomes that were measured for both female and males we see a greater uncertainty in the estimate. It is not obviously clear why this is. The ‘both’ outcomes are restricted to extinction rate, offspring viability, mutant frequency and reproductive success. However, the shift from ‘both’ being ns in unstressed to significant in stressed may reflect the dampening of the negative correlations (sexual antagonism).

table(restricted.data$Outcome, restricted.data$Sex)
                                  
                                    M  B  F
  Behavioural Plasticity            0  0  0
  Body Condition                    1  0  0
  Body Size                         0  0  0
  Development Rate                  0  0  0
  Early Fecundity                   0  0  0
  Ejaculate Quality and Production 18  0  0
  Extinction Rate                   0  4  0
  Fitness Senescence                3  0  3
  Immunity                          0  0  0
  Lifespan                          2  0 34
  Male Attractiveness               6  0  0
  Mating Duration                   0  0  0
  Mating Frequency                  5  0  6
  Mating Latency                   12  0  1
  Mating Success                   35  0  0
  Mutant Frequency                  2  6  0
  Offspring Viability              15 15 26
  Pesticide Resistance              0  0  0
  Reproductive Success             41  8 91
  Strength                          2  0  0

Estimating Heterogeneity using I2 and exploring correlations

Let’s obtain a I2 statistic using the formulas presented here: http://www.metafor-project.org/doku.php/tips:i2_multilevel_multivariate

There are different methods to obtain estimates of I2, they should be pretty similar though. Here we obtain an overall value of I2 that is weighted based on variance where estimates of heterogeneity are sourced from sigma2 of the respective models.

#There are two estimates of heterogeneity: A between cluster (between studies) and a within-cluster (outcomes within a study)
#This is for the model with outcome within study
W <- diag(1/restricted.data$var.g)
X <- model.matrix(model.complete2)
P <- W - W %*% X %*% solve(t(X) %*% W %*% X) %*% t(X) %*% W
100 * sum(model.complete2$sigma2) / (sum(model.complete2$sigma2) + (model.complete2$k-model.complete2$p)/sum(diag(P)))
[1] 92.57563

This is a reasonably high I2 value but is relatively common in Ecology and Evolution (Nakagawa 2017).

To investigate the sources of heterogeneity we can obtain a breakdown of the heterogeneity for the three level model.

100 * model.complete2$sigma2 / (sum(model.complete2$sigma2) + (model.complete2$k-model.complete2$p)/sum(diag(P)))
[1] 24.30062 68.27501

This indicates that 24.3 % of total heterogeneity is due to the between study heterogeneity and 68.275 % for within study heterogeneity between different outcomes. With the remaining 7.5 % due to sampling variance. Interestingly this might indicate that I2 would be largely reduced for a model restricted to a single outcome… Let’s test this with our most common outcome…Reproductive Success

#Reproductive Success Restriction 
restricted.dataRS <- restricted.data %>% filter(restricted.data$Outcome == "Reproductive Success")
#Run reproductive success only model 
model.completeRS <- rma.mv(g, var.g, mods = ~ 1 + Sex + Environment + Sex:Environment, random = ~ 1 | Study.ID, method = "REML", data = restricted.dataRS)
#Run estimate of heterogeneity
W2 <- diag(1/restricted.dataRS$var.g)
X2 <- model.matrix(model.completeRS)
P2 <- W2 - W2 %*% X2 %*% solve(t(X2) %*% W2 %*% X2) %*% t(X2) %*% W2
100 * sum(model.completeRS$sigma2) / (sum(model.completeRS$sigma2) + (model.completeRS$k-model.completeRS$p)/sum(diag(P2)))
[1] 79.5345

So if we look at an individual outcomes such as reproductive success our I^2 is lower (79.53 %). Which is still high as it comes from 39 studies but lower than others. If we wanted to run models independently we could do it for those with a large enough sample size (k>10).

Furthermore, we can obtain estimates of the intra-class correlation (ICC) within a study via:

round(model.complete2$sigma2[1] / sum(model.complete2$sigma2), 3)
[1] 0.262

This means that within a study, between different outcomes, there is a correlation of 26.2 % (low-medium). This justifies including outcome as a level, as without it we would be assuming ICC = 1. We can also gain an estimate of the total heterogeniety, as the sum of the sigma componenets:

round(sum(model.complete2$sigma2), 3)
[1] 0.216

Multilevel model using metafors alternative random effect structure

This inner, outer factor stuff from the metafor package is a bit strange. There is a description in ?rma.mv() but still unsure how it differs from the above model. It seems that it is useful to breakdown variance-covariance matrix but unsure how that would benefit our analysis.

#Just to check, how about with outcome as the inner factor 
model.complete2.2 <- rma.mv(g, var.g, mods = ~ 1 + Sex + Environment + Sex:Environment, random = ~ factor(Outcome) | Study.ID, method = "REML", data = restricted.data)
summary(model.complete2.2)

Multivariate Meta-Analysis Model (k = 336; method: REML)

    logLik    Deviance         AIC         BIC        AICc  
-1207.9250   2415.8499   2431.8499   2462.2427   2432.2985  

Variance Components: 

outer factor: Study.ID        (nlvls = 56)
inner factor: factor(Outcome) (nlvls = 13)

            estim    sqrt  fixed
tau^2      0.2159  0.4647     no
rho        0.2626             no

Test for Residual Heterogeneity: 
QE(df = 330) = 4576.5205, p-val < .0001

Test of Moderators (coefficient(s) 2:6): 
QM(df = 5) = 47.2344, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

                          estimate      se     zval    pval    ci.lb    ci.ub     
intrcpt                     0.1763  0.0605   2.9130  0.0036   0.0577   0.2949   **
SexB                       -0.0623  0.1132  -0.5503  0.5821  -0.2840   0.1595     
SexF                        0.0395  0.0341   1.1595  0.2463  -0.0273   0.1062     
EnvironmentStressed        -0.1195  0.0429  -2.7845  0.0054  -0.2036  -0.0354   **
SexB:EnvironmentStressed    0.1457  0.0919   1.5860  0.1127  -0.0344   0.3258     
SexF:EnvironmentStressed    0.2566  0.0540   4.7530  <.0001   0.1508   0.3624  ***

---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 
#Now with a slightly different structure (HCS)
model.complete2.3 <- rma.mv(g, var.g, mods = ~ 1 + Sex + Environment + Sex:Environment, random = ~ Outcome | Study.ID, struct = "HCS", method = "REML", data = restricted.data)
summary(model.complete2.3)

Multivariate Meta-Analysis Model (k = 336; method: REML)

    logLik    Deviance         AIC         BIC        AICc  
-1196.2648   2392.5295   2432.5295   2508.5114   2435.2480  

Variance Components: 

outer factor: Study.ID (nlvls = 56)
inner factor: Outcome  (nlvls = 13)

             estim    sqrt  k.lvl  fixed                             level
tau^2.1     2.3154  1.5217      1     no                    Body Condition
tau^2.2     0.4694  0.6851     18     no  Ejaculate Quality and Production
tau^2.3     0.3083  0.5553      4     no                   Extinction Rate
tau^2.4     0.0075  0.0865      6     no                Fitness Senescence
tau^2.5     0.1011  0.3179     36     no                          Lifespan
tau^2.6     2.4494  1.5650      6     no               Male Attractiveness
tau^2.7     0.5773  0.7598     11     no                  Mating Frequency
tau^2.8     0.2323  0.4820     13     no                    Mating Latency
tau^2.9     0.8082  0.8990     35     no                    Mating Success
tau^2.10    0.0729  0.2700      8     no                  Mutant Frequency
tau^2.11    0.1205  0.3471     56     no               Offspring Viability
tau^2.12    0.1762  0.4197    140     no              Reproductive Success
tau^2.13    0.0158  0.1257      2     no                          Strength
rho         0.6386                    no                                  

Test for Residual Heterogeneity: 
QE(df = 330) = 4576.5205, p-val < .0001

Test of Moderators (coefficient(s) 2:6): 
QM(df = 5) = 45.8143, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

                          estimate      se     zval    pval    ci.lb    ci.ub     
intrcpt                     0.1122  0.0498   2.2543  0.0242   0.0147   0.2098    *
SexB                       -0.0198  0.0952  -0.2075  0.8356  -0.2064   0.1669     
SexF                        0.0407  0.0338   1.2058  0.2279  -0.0255   0.1069     
EnvironmentStressed        -0.1095  0.0429  -2.5538  0.0107  -0.1935  -0.0255    *
SexB:EnvironmentStressed    0.1262  0.0889   1.4193  0.1558  -0.0481   0.3005     
SexF:EnvironmentStressed    0.2494  0.0537   4.6410  <.0001   0.1441   0.3548  ***

---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 
#Generate predictions without taxon
get.predictions.complete2 <- function(newdata){
  B<-0; F<-0; Stressed<-0; interaction1<-0; interaction2<-0; interaction3<-0
  if(newdata[1] == "B") B<-1 
  if(newdata[1] == "F") F<-1 
  if(newdata[2] == "Stressed") Unstressed<-1
  if(newdata[1] == "B" & newdata[2] == "Stressed") interaction1<-1
  if(newdata[1] == "F" & newdata[2] == "Stressed") interaction2<-1
  predict(model.complete2.2, newmods=c(B, F, Stressed, interaction1=interaction1, interaction2=interaction2))
}
# Get the predictions for each combination of moderators
predictions.complete2 <- as.data.frame(expand.grid(Sex = c("M", "B", "F"),
                           Environment = c("Unstressed", "Stressed")))
predictions.complete2 <- cbind(predictions.complete2, do.call("rbind", apply(predictions.complete2, 1, get.predictions.complete2))) %>%
  select(Sex, Environment, pred, se, ci.lb, ci.ub) 
for(i in 3:6) predictions.complete2[,i] <- unlist(predictions.complete2[,i])
#And plot the results
pd <- position_dodgev(height = .3)
predictions.complete2 %>% ggplot(aes(x = pred, y= Environment, colour = Sex)) + 
  geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = 2, colour = "grey70") + 
  geom_errorbarh(aes(xmin = predictions.complete2$ci.lb, xmax = predictions.complete2$ci.ub), height = 0, position = pd) +
  geom_point(position = pd) + 
  ylab("Environment")+
  xlab("Effect Size (Hedges g)")+
  xlim(-.75, .75)+
  ggtitle('Effects of Sex, Stress \non Population Fitness (OUTCOME = INNER FACTOR)')


Meta-Analysis on Variance

This meta-analysis on variation utilises previously described and utilised methods devoleped (Nakagawa et al. 2015; Senior et al. 2016). Our goal is to determine whether the phenotypic variance in fitness related traits is impacted by sexual selection. We would assume that if selection is occuring not only would the trait mean shift in a certain direction but the variance associated with those changes to the mean would also decrease. In this case we use an effect size statistic known as the natural log of the coefficient of variation ratio (lnCVR)

First, we setup our calculation by creating a a restricted dataset with only unabmiguous fitness outcomes and running the functions developed by Nakagawa et al. 2015:

#Setup restricted data
prelim.data2 <- (prelim.data %>% filter(Outcome.Class != "Ambiguous"))
#Run function for lnCVR and associated variance of lnCVR
#for lnCVR
Calc.lnCVR<-function(CMean, CSD, CN, EMean, ESD, EN){
    
    ES<-log(ESD) - log(EMean) + 1 / (2*(EN - 1)) - (log(CSD) - log(CMean) + 1 / (2*(CN - 1)))
    
    return(ES)
    
}
#for variance of lnCVR
Calc.var.lnCVR<-function(CMean, CSD, CN, EMean, ESD, EN, Equal.E.C.Corr=T){
    
    if(Equal.E.C.Corr==T){
    
        mvcorr<-cor.test(log(c(CMean, EMean)), log(c(CSD, ESD)))$estimate
    
        S2<- CSD^2 / (CN * (CMean^2)) + 1 / (2 * (CN - 1)) - 2 * mvcorr * sqrt((CSD^2 / (CN * (CMean^2))) * (1 / (2 * (CN - 1)))) + ESD^2 / (EN * (EMean^2)) + 1 / (2 * (EN - 1)) - 2 * mvcorr * sqrt((ESD^2 / (EN * (EMean^2))) * (1 / (2 * (EN - 1))))
    
    }
    else{
        
        Cmvcorr<-cor.test(log(CMean), log(CSD))$estimate
        Emvcorr<-cor.test(log(EMean), (ESD))$estimate
    
        S2<- CSD^2 / (CN * (CMean^2)) + 1 / (2 * (CN - 1)) - 2 * Cmvcorr * sqrt((CSD^2 / (CN * (CMean^2))) * (1 / (2 * (CN - 1)))) + ESD^2 / (EN * (EMean^2)) + 1 / (2 * (EN - 1)) - 2 * Emvcorr * sqrt((ESD^2 / (EN * (EMean^2))) * (1 / (2 * (EN - 1))))      
        
        
    }
    return(S2)
    
}

Secondly, we utilise those formulas to obtain lnCVR and var.CVR for all applicable effect sizes. Noting that not all of the dataset has means, SD and n; some were calculated from summary statistics and are not able to have lnCVR calculated. Once we obtain these lnCVR estimates we can run subsetted models that use as the response variable:

Now utilise function with existing data frame

#foe lnCVR
prelim.data2$lnCVr <- Calc.lnCVR(prelim.data2$mean.low, prelim.data2$sd.low, prelim.data2$n.low, prelim.data2$mean.high, prelim.data2$sd.high, prelim.data2$n.high)
#for variance in lnCVR
prelim.data2$var.lnCVr <- Calc.var.lnCVR(prelim.data2$mean.low, prelim.data2$sd.low, prelim.data2$n.low, prelim.data2$mean.high, prelim.data2$sd.high, prelim.data2$n.high, Equal.E.C.Corr=F)
#Run simple models subsetted for each environment/sex (this is perhaps a clunky way so we also use predictions shown below)
# For stressed environment and females
varSF <- rma.mv(lnCVr, var.lnCVr, data = prelim.data2, mods = ~ 1, random = ~ 1 | Study.ID/Outcome, subset = (Environment == "Stressed" & Sex == "F"))
Rows with NAs omitted from model fitting.
# For stressed environment and females
varSM <- rma.mv(lnCVr, var.lnCVr, data = prelim.data2, mods = ~ 1, random = ~ 1 | Study.ID/Outcome, subset = (Environment == "Stressed" & Sex == "M"))
Rows with NAs omitted from model fitting.
# For stressed environment and females
varSB <- rma.mv(lnCVr, var.lnCVr, data = prelim.data2, mods = ~ 1, random = ~ 1 | Study.ID/Outcome, subset = (Environment == "Stressed" & Sex == "B"))
Rows with NAs omitted from model fitting.
#For Benign environment and females
varUF<- rma.mv(lnCVr, var.lnCVr, data = prelim.data2, mods = ~1, random = ~ 1 | Study.ID/Outcome, subset = (Environment == "Unstressed" & Sex == "F"))
Rows with NAs omitted from model fitting.
#For Benign environment and males
varUM<- rma.mv(lnCVr, var.lnCVr, data = prelim.data2, mods = ~1, random = ~ 1 | Study.ID/Outcome, subset = (Environment == "Unstressed" & Sex == "M"))
Rows with NAs omitted from model fitting.
#For Benign environment and both
varUB <- rma.mv(lnCVr, var.lnCVr, data = prelim.data2, mods = ~1, random = ~ 1 | Study.ID/Outcome, subset = (Environment == "Unstressed" & Sex == "B"))
Rows with NAs omitted from model fitting.
#Create dataframe of estimates and confidence intervals
lnCVR <- c(varSF$b, varSM$b, varSB$b, varUF$b, varUM$b, varUB$b)
l.ci <- c(varSF$ci.lb, varSM$ci.lb, varSB$ci.lb, varUF$ci.lb, varUM$ci.lb, varUB$ci.lb)
u.ci <- c(varSF$ci.ub, varSM$ci.ub, varSB$ci.ub, varUF$ci.ub, varUM$ci.ub, varUB$ci.ub)
Environment <- c("Stressed", "Stressed", "Stressed", "Unstressed", "Unstressed", "Unstressed")
Sex <- c("Female", "Male", "Both", "Female", "Male", "Both")
k <- c(varSF$k, varSM$k, varSB$k, varUF$k, varUM$k, varUB$k)
var.data <- data.frame(lnCVR, l.ci, u.ci, Environment, Sex, k)
#Releveling the factors to make sure it aligns with other formatted graphs
var.data$Environment <- var.data$Environment %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="Unstressed")
var.data$Sex <- var.data$Sex %>% factor %>% relevel(ref="Male")
#Plot subseted model estimates
var.data %>% ggplot(aes(x=lnCVR, y = Environment, colour = Sex))+ 
  geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = 2, colour = "grey70") + 
  geom_errorbarh(aes(xmin = l.ci, xmax = u.ci), height = 0, position = pd) +
  geom_point(position = pd) + 
  ylab("Environment")+
  xlab("lnCVR")+
  xlim(-.75, .75)+
  ggtitle('Meta-Analysis of Variance (Using Subsetting)')

Here we see that Stressed environments tend to reduce phenotypic variance (if anything). However, perhaps a better way to conduct this analysis is not through subsetting but through utilising model predictions as we did with Hedges’ g previously. This can be done be utilising the same predict function but for lnCVR and var.lnCVR.

Multilevel-model using lnCVR:

#Now try with multilevel model 
variance.model <- rma.mv(lnCVr, var.lnCVr, mods = ~ 1 + Sex + Environment + Sex:Environment, random = ~ 1 | Study.ID/Outcome, method = "REML", data = prelim.data2 %>% filter(Environment != "Not Stated"))
Rows with NAs omitted from model fitting.Redundant predictors dropped from the model.
summary(variance.model)

Multivariate Meta-Analysis Model (k = 277; method: REML)

    logLik    Deviance         AIC         BIC        AICc  
-3871.9266   7743.8533   7759.8533   7788.6702   7760.4029  

Variance Components: 

            estim    sqrt  nlvls  fixed            factor
sigma^2.1  0.1080  0.3287     46     no          Study.ID
sigma^2.2  0.3488  0.5906     80     no  Study.ID/Outcome

Test for Residual Heterogeneity: 
QE(df = 271) = 13217.4543, p-val < .0001

Test of Moderators (coefficient(s) 2:6): 
QM(df = 5) = 4835.2829, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

                          estimate      se     zval    pval    ci.lb    ci.ub     
intrcpt                    -0.0612  0.1578  -0.3878  0.6982  -0.3706   0.2482     
SexF                       -0.1357  0.1523  -0.8910  0.3730  -0.4342   0.1628     
SexM                        0.5825  0.1532   3.8014  0.0001   0.2822   0.8829  ***
EnvironmentStressed        -0.5085  0.0639  -7.9550  <.0001  -0.6338  -0.3832  ***
SexF:EnvironmentStressed   -0.6235  0.0685  -9.1004  <.0001  -0.7578  -0.4892  ***
SexM:EnvironmentStressed    0.0333  0.0700   0.4754  0.6345  -0.1039   0.1705     

---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 

Plotted predictions of lnCVR for various moderators:

#Generate predictions
get.predictions.variance <- function(newdata){
  F<-0; M<-0; Stressed<-0; interaction1<-0; interaction2<-0; interaction3<-0
  if(newdata[1] == "F") F<-1 
  if(newdata[1] == "M") M<-1 
  if(newdata[2] == "Stressed") Unstressed<-1
  if(newdata[1] == "F" & newdata[2] == "Stressed") interaction1<-1
  if(newdata[1] == "M" & newdata[2] == "Stressed") interaction2<-1
  predict(variance.model, newmods=c(F, M, Stressed, interaction1=interaction1, interaction2=interaction2))
}
# Get the predictions for each combination of moderators
predictions.variance <- as.data.frame(expand.grid(Sex = c("M", "B", "F"),
                           Environment = c("Unstressed", "Stressed")))
predictions.variance <- cbind(predictions.variance, do.call("rbind", apply(predictions.variance, 1, get.predictions.variance))) %>%
  select(Sex, Environment, pred, se, ci.lb, ci.ub) 
for(i in 3:6) predictions.variance[,i] <- unlist(predictions.variance[,i])
#And plot the results
pd <- position_dodgev(height = .3)
predictions.variance %>% ggplot(aes(x = pred, y= Environment, colour = Sex)) + 
  geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = 2, colour = "grey70") + 
  geom_errorbarh(aes(xmin = predictions.variance$ci.lb, xmax = predictions.variance$ci.ub), height = 0, position = pd) +
  geom_point(position = pd) + 
  ylab("Environment")+
  xlab("lnCVR")+
  xlim(-1.2, 1.2)+
  ggtitle('Meta-Analysis of Variance (Using Model Predictions)')

From these predictions we see that environmental stress has a large impact on phenotypic variance, whereby phenotypic variance is lower for females than for males and under stressful conditions the phenotypic variance of females decreases. Indicating there is a narrowing of phenotypic variance under selection.


Bias

Funnel plots indicate potential but small amounts of publication bias

Checking for biases with a funnell plot. Note that the trim and fill method does not work with rma.mv objects. However we can perform Eggers test using the ragtest() function. This tests for asymmetry via assessing relationships between effect size and a specified predictor. See ?ragtest() for more information. Also the eggers test does not work for rma.mv objects.

trim.ambig <- trimfill.rma.uni(model.Ambiguous)
funnel.rma(trim.ambig)

regtest(model.Ambiguous, predictor = "vi")

Regression Test for Funnel Plot Asymmetry

model:     mixed-effects meta-regression model
predictor: sampling variance

test for funnel plot asymmetry: z = 1.6784, p = 0.0933
funnel.rma(model.Indirect)

regtest(model.Indirect, predictor = "vi")

Regression Test for Funnel Plot Asymmetry

model:     mixed-effects meta-regression model
predictor: sampling variance

test for funnel plot asymmetry: z = 6.1203, p < .0001
funnel.rma(model.Direct)

regtest(model.Direct, predictor = "vi")

Regression Test for Funnel Plot Asymmetry

model:     mixed-effects meta-regression model
predictor: sampling variance

test for funnel plot asymmetry: z = 3.1078, p = 0.0019
funnel.rma(model.complete2, type="rstandard", yaxis = "sei")

Now use ggplot for funnel plot. This is pretty clunky and unlike the funnel.rma it does not use residuals but raw effect sizes, we could of course add residuals, so it depends on how much customization you think these plots should have. The outline taken from: https://sakaluk.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/7-make-it-pretty-plots-for-meta-analysis/

#Funnel plot for indirect model
#Make restricted data for indirect
prelim.data.Indirect <- prelim.data %>% filter(Outcome.Class == "Indirect")
#read in apatheme
#My APA-format theme
apatheme=theme_bw()+
  theme(panel.grid.major=element_blank(),
        panel.grid.minor=element_blank(),
        panel.border=element_blank(),
        axis.line=element_line(),
        text=element_text(family='Times'),
        legend.position='none')
#Store the meta-analytic estimate and its standard error from whatever model you run (substitute your own values)
estimate = model.Indirect$b
se = model.Indirect$se
 
#Store a vector of values that spans the range from 0
#to the max value of impression (standard error) in your dataset.
#Make the increment (the final value) small enough (I choose 0.001)
#to ensure your whole range of data is captured
se.seq=seq(0, max(sqrt(prelim.data.Indirect$var.g)), 0.001)
 
#Now, compute vectors of the lower-limit and upper limit values for
#the 95% CI region, using the range of SE that you generated in the previous step, and the stored value of your meta-analytic estimate.
ll95 = estimate-(1.96*se.seq)
ul95 = estimate+(1.96*se.seq)
 
#You can do this for a 99% CI region too
ll99 = estimate-(3.29*se.seq)
ul99 = estimate+(3.29*se.seq)
 
#And finally, do the same thing except now calculating the confidence interval
#for your meta-analytic estimate based on the stored value of its standard error
meanll95 = estimate-(1.96*se)
meanul95 = estimate+(1.96*se)
 
#Now, smash all of those calculated values into one data frame (called 'dfCI').
#You might get a warning about '...row names were found from a short variable...'
#You can ignore it.
dfCI = data.frame(ll95, ul95, ll99, ul99, se.seq, estimate, meanll95, meanul95)
row names were found from a short variable and have been discarded
 
#Now we can actually make the funnel plot.
#Using your original data-frame, map standard error to your x-axis (for now) and Zr to your y-axis
fp = ggplot(prelim.data.Indirect, aes_string(x = sqrt(prelim.data.Indirect$var.g), y =prelim.data.Indirect$g)) +
#Add your data-points to the scatterplot
  geom_point(shape = 1) +
#Give the x- and y- axes informative labels
  xlab('Standard Error') + ylab('g')+
#Now using the 'dfCI' data-frame we created, plot dotted lines corresponding
#to the lower and upper limits of your 95% CI region,
#And dashed lines corresponding to your 99% CI region
  geom_line(aes(x = se.seq, y = ll95), linetype = 'dotted', data = dfCI) +
  geom_line(aes(x = se.seq, y = ul95), linetype = 'dotted', data = dfCI) +
  geom_line(aes(x = se.seq, y = ll99), linetype = 'dashed', data = dfCI) +
  geom_line(aes(x = se.seq, y = ul99), linetype = 'dashed', data = dfCI) +
#Now plot dotted lines corresponding to the 95% CI of your meta-analytic estimate
   geom_segment(aes(x = min(se.seq), y = meanll95, xend = max(se.seq), yend = meanll95), linetype='dotted', data=dfCI) +
  geom_segment(aes(x = min(se.seq), y = meanul95, xend = max(se.seq), yend = meanul95), linetype='dotted', data=dfCI) +
#Reverse the x-axis ordering (se) so that the tip of the funnel will appear
#at the top of the figure once we swap the x- and y-axes...
  scale_x_reverse()+
#Specify the range and interval for the tick-marks of the y-axis (Zr);
#Choose values that work for you based on your data
  scale_y_continuous(breaks=seq(-1.25,2,0.25))+
#And now we flip the axes so that SE is on y- and Zr is on x-
  coord_flip()+
#Finally, apply my APA-format theme (see code at end of post).
#You could, alternatively, specify theme_bw() instead.
  apatheme
 
#Call the pretty funnel plot
fp

Other tests of publication bias suggest there is little evidence for publication bias

Journal Impact Factor

If we see a positive trend with effect size and Journal Impact Factor it may represent publication bias whereby significant (positive) results are published more readily and in more circulated journals. Our journal impact factor dataset is not evenly distributed as several publications in Nature (JIF ~ 40) are much larger than the next highest JIF (~11).

prelim.data %>% ggplot(aes(x=JIF, y=(g)))+
  geom_jitter(color='darkgreen', alpha=.3, aes(size = (1/(var.g))))+
  geom_hline(yintercept=0, linetype = 'dotted')+
  geom_smooth(method='lm', color='black')+
  labs(size = 'weight')

I think it may also be interesting to plot the maximum effect size for each study and then plot the results as many studies measure a suite of traits.

Time-lag Bias

We can also look at the time-lag bias, which suggests effect size decreases over time. Again, because one publication from 1980 is well before the next publication in the late 1990s we see a very uneven distribution.

prelim.data %>% ggplot(aes(x=Year, y=g))+
  geom_jitter(color='orange', alpha=.3, aes(size = (1/(var.g))))+
  geom_hline(yintercept=0, linetype = 'dotted')+
  geom_smooth(method='lm', color='black')+
  labs(size = 'weight')

Blinding

From these graphs, we see a small trend for larger effect sizes to be published in higher impact journals as well as for effect size to decrease over successive years. Additionally to publication bias, other forms of bias may exist within studies. We initially collected data on whether studies were blind or not. Although not enough studies were blind for us to include it as a fixed effect within the model we can test whether blinding affects the raw effect size:

df.forest.model %>% ggplot(aes(x=Blinding, y=g))+
  geom_boxplot()+
  geom_jitter(aes(color=Blinding))+
  geom_hline(yintercept=0, linetype = 'dotted')

Sample Size

We also collected sample sizes for each of the effect sizes calculated. Because we are dealing withj different taxa some studies are not suited to have sample sizes in the 1000’s. We can simply inspect the sample size ande effect sizes through the following plot:

prelim.data %>% ggplot(aes(x=(n), y = g))+
  geom_point()+
  xlim(0,2100)+
  facet_grid(Taxon~., scales='free')+
  ylim(-3.5,3.5)+
  geom_hline(yintercept=0, linetype="dashed")

(Promislow 1998 has one sample size of >10,000) and is not shown here. From these plots we can see that with increased sample size the effect sizes are closer to zero. Thistrend should be taken into account as meta-analytic models are wighted by 1/variance.

Generations

We recorded the number of generations of experimental exolution each study used. The number of generations proved a negligable predictor in the meta-analytic models and can be seen here:

prelim.data %>% ggplot(aes(x=Generations, y=g, color=Taxon))+
  geom_point()+
  ylim(-3.5,3.5)+
  geom_hline(yintercept=0, linetype="dashed")

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